\-i]''\'X^{-M'-::\\\. 


i 


A            ^^^^^n 

A— ^^^H 

0  — "^^^H: 

7  — §^^^H^ 

4 i^^^K- 

3  — -^^^H 

7  =="^^^^H 

9 '-^^^H 

?li! 


UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


SCHOOL  OF  LAW 
LIBRARY 


A   TREATISE 

ON  THE 

LAW  OF   CARRIERS 


VOLUME    ONE 


^   TREATISE 


LAW    OF    CARRIERS 

AS    ADMINISTERED    BY    THE    COURTS    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES, 
CANADA    AND    ENGLAND,     COVERING    THE     PRINCIPLES    AND 
RULES  APPLICABLE  TO  CARRIERS  OF  GOODS,  PASSENGERS, 
LIVE    STOCK,    COMMON    CARRIERS,    CONNECTING    CAR- 
RIERS,    AND     INTERSTATE     AND     INTERNATIONAL 
TRANSPORTATION      BY      LAND      AND      WATER, 
AND   THE    METHODS    AND   PROCEDURE    FOR 
THEIR    ENFORCEMENT,    FURNISHING    A 
PRACTICAL  GUIDE  TO  LITIGANTS  IN 
THE  JURISDICTIONS  NAMED,  A^'D 
INCLUDING     THE     TEXT     OF 

THE  ACT  TO  REGULATE  COMMERCE 

AS    AJVIENDED 

AND  ALL  ACTS  SUPPLEMENTARY  THERETO 

REVISED  TO  JANUARY  1,  1914 

By  DEWITT  C,  MOORE 

Of  the  Johnstown,  New  York,  Bar ;  Author  of  "  The  Law  of  Fraudulent  Conveyances." 


IN  THREE  VOLUMES 

VOLUME  1 


Albaxy  iSr.  Y. 
MATTHEW  BENDER  &  COMPANY 

1914: 


T 

vo(J 


Copyright,  1914, 
By  MATTHEW  BENDER  &  CO. 


PREFACE  TO  SECOND  EDITION. 


The  fundamental  principles  of  the  law  of  carriers  have  long 
been  firmly  established  in  jurisprudence.  But  the  changed  con- 
ditions of  modern  life  and  progress  have  made  essential  important 
modifications  and  limitations  upon  the  liability  of  the  common 
carrier  which  have  found  expression  in  judicial  decisions  and 
statutory  enactments.  The  law  of  carriers  in  its  actual  operation, 
touching  and  regulating,  as  it  now  does,  transportation  by  modes 
and  means  formerly  unknown  and  under  circumstances  and  con- 
ditions hardly  conceivable  to  the  fathers  of  the  law,  has  become 
so  broad  and  comprehensive,  and  the  cases  to  which  it  has  been 
applied  have  become  so  multitudinous  and  of  such  infinite  variety, 
that  the  author  of  these  volumes  necessarily  could  not  have  covered 
the  entire  field  of  the  law  on  this  subject  in  the  one  volume  pre- 
pared by  him  and  published  in  1906,  and  it  is  scarcely  to  be  ex- 
pected that  he  has  succeeded  in  accomplishing  so  great  an  under- 
taking in  the  three  volumes  now  presented. 

An  effort  has  been  made,  however,  to  widen  the  scope  of  the- 
work  and  add  to  its  usefulness  to  the  profession.  The  chapters, 
of  the  first  edition  have  been  revised  and  amplified  and  brought 
down  to  date  by  the  later  decisions,  and  new  chapters,  treating  of 
new  topics  of  great  and  growing  present  interest  and  importance, 
have  been  added. 

It  has  been  the  aim  of  the  writer  not  only  to  present  to  his 
brethem  in  an  engrossing  profession  the  latest  cases  in  the  various 
jurisdictions  but  also  to  show  the  reason,  source,  and  foundation 
of  the  principles  and  rules  set  forth  and  the  authorities  by  which 
they  have  been  established  and  are  maintained.  He  has  aimed  to 
show  the  present  law  and  the  specific  rules  applicable  in  a  multi- 
tude of  cases,  in  an  orderly  arranged,  concise  form,  easily  acces- 
sible and  readily  adaptable  to  the  use  of  the  practitioner. 

Comprehensive  tables  of  contents  and  chapter  headings,  a  copi- 
ous general  index  covering  both  text  and  notes,  an  appendix  giving 
the  text  of  the  Act  to  Tiegulate  Commerce,  as  amended,  and  Acts 


PREFACE  TO  SECOND  EDITION. 

Supplementarj  thereto,  as  revised  to  January  1,  1914,  carefully 
indexed,  and  a  complete  table  of  cases  cited,  make  the  contents 
readily  available  for  expeditious  use. 

The  writer  avails  himself  of  this  opportunity  to  express  his  deep 
appreciation  of  the  favorable  reception  accorded  by  the  profession 
to  the  first  edition. 

It  has  been  said  that  that  writer  does  the  most  who  gives  his 
reader  the  most  knowledge  and  takes  from  him  the  least  time. 
Continuing  in  the  exercise  of  the  privilege  which  a  preface  allows 
to  an  author  to  speak  of  himself,  it  may  be  said,  in  addition  to 
what  has  already  been  said,  that  it  has  taken  more  time  and  labor 
to  abridge  these  pages  than  to  write  them  and  that  the  work  con- 
tains that  which  is  the  result  of  much  reading,  study,  and  reflec- 
tion, and  painstaking,  diligent  application.  The  writer,  like  all 
others,  is  better  qualified  to  speak  of  the  pains  that  his  efforts  have 
cost  him  than  any  one  who  may  make  use  of  his  work  can  possibly 
be;  but  to  what  purpose  he  has  devoted  his  labors  is  a  question 
upon  which  his  readers  would  not  regard  it  as  within  the  limits 
of  privilege  or  propriety  for  him  to  express  an  opinion.  The 
utility  of  the  results  attained  must  be  the  test  of  their  value  to 
the  profession. 

In  the  hope  and  confident  belief  that,  even  though  there  may 
be  found  some  phases  of  the  subject  under  consideration  which 
have  not  been  presented,  or,  if  presented,  not  exhaustively  covered, 
the  work  will  be  found  to  amply  and  accurately  give  the  law  upon 
all  matters  considered  within  its  pages,  the  work  is  respectfully 
submitted. 

Johnstown,  I^.  Y.,  April  4,  1914. 

Dewitt  C.  Mooke. 


PREFACE  TO  FIRST  EDITION. 


The  author  of  this  volume  performed  the  greater  portion  of  the 
work  necessary  to  the  preparation  of  Nellis'  "  Street  Railroad 
Accident  Law,"  published  in  May,  1904,  and  was  generously  ac- 
corded the  credit  therefor  by  the  author  of  that  work  in  the  preface 
to  that  volume.  The  favorable  manner  in  which  that  publication 
was  received  by  the  profession  led  him  to  undertake  the  more 
laborious  ta&ik  of  preparing  this  volume  covering  the  broader  field 
of  "  The  Law  of  Carriers." 

The  public  interest  in  questions  concerning  the  rights,  duties, 
and  liabilities  of  common  carriers  in  their  relations  to  shippers 
and  travelers,  and  their  regulation  by  statutory  enactments,  and 
the  increasing  litigation  over  questions  growing  out  of  such  rela- 
tions, seemed  to  render  the  subject  a  timely  one.  The  multitude 
of  cases  demonstrates  how  important  and  far-reaching  the  subject 
hag  become,  and  how  laborious  was  the  task  involved  of  presenting 
this  mass  of  decisions  and  precedents  in  practicable  form  for  pro- 
fessional use. 

It  has  been  the  chief  aim  of  the  author  to  furnish  suitors  with 
a  practical  guide  in  this  class  of  litigation  by  as  full  a  presentation 
as  possible  of  the  established  principles  and  rules  governing  the 
various  and  varying  phases  in  which  controverted  questions  have 
been  and  may  be  presented  for  judicial  adjustment.  The  decisions 
and  rulings  in  different  jurisdictions,  and  the  reasons  therefor,  so 
far  as  practicable,  have  been  set  forth,  and  the  latest  as  well  as  the 
earliest  authorities  in  the  different  States  are  cited  and  conven- 
iently arranged. 

A  chapter  is  devoted  to  Interstate  Transportation,  giving  the 
decisions  of  the  courts  upon  the  principal  questions  arising  in  the 
course  of  the  administration  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act  of 
1887,  and-  the  amendments  thereto.  These  decisions  forecast  to  a 
e£)nsideral)le  extent  the  probable  construction  that  wnll  be  given  by 
the  courts  to  many  of  the  provisions  of  the  recent  Act  of  Congress, 
^own  as  the  Railroad  Rate  Act.     The  full  text  of  the  new  law  is 


Preface. 

given,  with  its  many  important  and  in  manv  respects  radical 
changes.  The  principal  purposes  and  objects  of  that  law  are  set 
foi-th,  but  only  when  the  law  is  in  actual  operation  can  it  be  de- 
termined wlu'lher  it  will  prove  as  effective  and  beneficial  as  thiKse 
who  are  responsible  for  tlie  legislation  have  urged  and  insisted  that 
it  would  be. 

In  the  confident  belief  that  the  work  will  be  well  received  and 
serve  a  useful  purpose  to  the  profession,  which  will  amply  repay 
tJie  author  for  the  care  and  labor  conscientiously  bestowed  upon 
it,  and  that  its  accuracy  of  statement  and  authority  will  be  found 
to  be  what  the  author  has  aimed  to  make  it,  the  volume  is  sub- 
mitted to  the  consideration  of  the  profession. 

Dewitt  C.  Moo  KB. 

Johnstown,  N.  Y.,  June  2,  1906. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

TOLUME  L 


PiMBE. 

Table  of  Ga^es  ^^^ 

CHAPTER  I. 
Careiers  Generally. 

Section     1.  Carrier   defined    1 

2.  Classes   of   carriers    1 

3.  Carriage  of  goods  a  bailment   2 

4.  Private    carriers 3 

5.  Duties  and  liabilities  of  .private  carriers    4 

6.  Private  carriers  without  hire   5 

7.  When  transportation   is   gratuitous    7 

8.  When   compensation    is    implied    9 

9.  Proof   of   negligence    10 

10.  Private  carriers    for    hire    11 

11.  Liability  of  private  carriers  for  hire    13 

12.  Special  contracts   increasing  or  diminishing  liability 14 

13.  Lien  of  the  private  carrier   15 

CHAPTER  II. 
Common  Carriers. 

GKcmoiT     1.  What  constitutes  a  common  carrier    19 

2.  Liability   of   the   common   carrier    26 

3.  Liability  in  the  carrying  of  live  stock   31 

4.  Liability  where  the  loss  or  injury  results  from  the  inherent 

nature  of  the  goods 32 

6.  Where  the  loss  or   injury   is  the  result  of  the  acts  of  the 

shipper 35 

6.  Where  the  loss  or  injury  is  the  result  of  delay  in  the  trans- 

mission of  the  goods    30 

7.  Where  the  loss  or  injury  is  caused  by  the  exercise  of  public 

authority    37 

(i) 


ii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Page. 

Skotion     8.  Liability  of  carrier  of  passengers 38 

9.  Express    companies    38 

10.  Railroad    companies    4U 

11.  Receivers  and  assignees  of  railroad  company  operating  the 

road   45 

12.  Trustees  of  mortgage  bonds  of  railroad  company 47 

13.  Street   railroad   companies    48 

14.  One   railroad   transporting   the   cars    of    another — terminal 

railroads   50 

15.  Transportation   or   dispatch   companies    52 

16.  Express    freight    lines    53 

17.  Owners  of  canal   boats    53 

18.  Owners  of  tow  boats  towing  water  craft  on  the  Mississippi.  54 

19.  Owners  of  boats  employed  in  towing  other  boats  or  vessels.  55 

20.  Ferrymen   .   , 58 

21.  Hackmen  .  .  .    60 

22.  Proprietors   of  omnibuses    61 

23.  Proprietors  of  stage  coaches  62 

24.  Palace  and  sleeping  .car  companies   63 

25.  Pipe  line  for  carrying  oil   69 

26.  Wagoners  ,   70 

27.  Carriers  by  river  craft    71 

28.  Truckmen,   freightmen,  draymen,  cartmen,   and  porters....  72 

29.  Owners  and  masters  of  ships  and  steamboats  or  vessels....  74 

30.  Lightermen  and  hoymen    77 

31.  Owners  of  toll  bridge    77 

32.  Canal  companies    78 

33.  Forwarding  merchants 80 

34.  Warehousemen   and   wharfingers    82 

35.  Postmasters,  mail  contractors,  and  mail  carriers   84 

36.  Log-carrying,  or  log-driving,  or  boom  companies 86 

37.  Telegraph    companies 87 

38.  Telephone   companies    95 

39.  Railroad    company    transporting    a    circus,    menagerie,    or 

show 96 

40.  Railroad  company  in  South  Carolina  only  over  its  own  line  97 

41.  Railroad   company   carrying   a   dog  for   accommodation  of 

passenger   97 

42.  Carrier  under  a  contract  exempting  "  river  risks  "   99 

43.  Owners   of   passenger  elevators    99 

44.  Car-switching  companies    104 

45.  Telegraph   messenger   companies    105 

46.  Carriers  of  money  and  bank  bills   108 

47.  An   irrigation  company    110 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Ul 


Page. 

Section  48.  Transfer    companies    112 

49.  Owners  of  grain  elevators    113 

60.  Storage   and  transfer  companies — public  moving  van  com- 
panies   .    .    114 

CHAPTER  III. 

Caekiees  of  Goods. — Duties  and  Liabilities. 

Section     1.  Carriers  of  goods 115 

2.  Duty  of  carrier  to  receive  and  carry   116 

3.  Must  haul  cars  and  freiglit  of  other  carriers   121 

4.  May  be  compelled  by  mandamus    123 

5.  When  failure  or  refusal  to  carry  is  legally  excusable   125 

6.  May  demand  prepayment  of  charges   131 

7.  When  carrier  may  select  mode  of  transportation   133 

8.  Duty  to  furnish  shipper  facilities  for  transportation   134 

9.  Failure  or  refusal  to  furnish  facilities  for  transportation..  141 

10.  Special  contracts  for  means  of  transportation 144 

11.  Duty  to  furnish  facilities  declared  by  statute 147 

12.  Must  furnish  suitable  and  safe  cars   150 

13.  Tender  of  goods  by  shipper    153 

14.  Illegal  purpose  of  shipper  as  a  defense   154 

15.  Proximate  cause  of  loss  or  injury 155 

16.  Discrimination  in  charges  or  facilities    156 

17.  The  rule  does  not  require  the  same  rates  and  facilities  for 

all   160 

18.  The  compensation  of  the  carrier    163 

19.  Excessive  charges  and  actions  therefor   165 

20.  Injunctions 167 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Commencement  of  Caekiee's  Liability. — Deliveey  to 

Caeeiee. 

Section     1.  Commencement  of  carrier's  liability    168 

2.  Effect  of  delivery  and  acceptance  other  than  initiating  lia- 

bility  of   carrier 173 

3.  Acts  constituting  delivery  to  and  acceptance  by  carrier. ...  174 

4.  Constructive   delivery — Custom   and  usage    179 

5.  Questions  of  law  and  fact — Question  for  jury  181 

6.  Acceptance  may  be  implied  from  proper  tender 181 

7.  Deposit  of  goods  elsewhere  than  at  regular  office  or  depot.  .  183 


|y  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Page, 
8«CTiow     8.  Delivery  to  agent  of  icarrier — Authority  of  agent  to  receive 

goods   185 

9.  Bill  of  lading  not  essential  to  constitute  delivery ISJi 

10.  Bill    of  lading  as   an   evidence  of  delivery 190 

11.  Duty  to  issue  bill  of  lading   191 

12.  Lioading   goods   on   cars Ifii 

13.  Proof  of  delivery  to  the  carrier    195 

CHArTER  V. 
Termination  of  Liability. — Deliveky  by  Cakriee. 

fiscnon     1.  Termination   of   carrier's    liability    196 

2.  Unloading    and    storing   goods    202 

3.  Liability  for  injury  while  goods  are  being  unloaded 204 

4.  Delivery  must  be  made  to  the  consignee  or  his  agent 205 

6.  Delivery    may    always    be    nuule   to    the    true   owner    of    the 

goods 209 

6.  Delivery    to    fraudulent    purchaser    210 

7.  Delivery  of  goods  sent  in  care  of  carrier's  local  agent 212 

8.  Consignor's  right  to  change  of  consignee    213 

9.  Delivery  to  holder  of  bill  of  lading 215 

10.  Carrier  entitled  to  demand  bill  of  lading    219 

11.  Carrier's  liability  to  innocent  purchaser  of  bill  of  lading.  .  220 

12.  Laches  of  holder  of  bill  of  lading    221 

13.  Goods  received   from   connecting  carrier 222 

13a.  Where  stoppage  in  transitu  is  provided  223 

14.  Stoppage  in  transitu  as  a  defense   223 

15.  Holder  of  bill  of  lading  has  priority  over  creditors   224 

16.  Effect  of  the  word  "  notify  "  in  a  bill  of  lading 22.') 

17.  Bill  of  lading  attached  to  draft   226 

18.  EflFect  of  bill  of  lading  as  estoppel    227 

19.  Duplicate   bills   of   lading    23 1 

20.  Necessity  of  endorsement  of  bill  of  lading   232 

21.  Carrier's  liability  for  misdelivery    23". 

22.  Delivery  to  one  of  two  persons  of  the  same  name 236 

23.  Place  of  delivery 238 

24.  Right  of  owner  or  consignee  to  change  place  of  delivery  .  . .  242 
26.  Statutory  requirements  as  to  delivery  of  grain    245 

26.  When  place  of  destination  is  not  on  carrier's  line 246 

27.  Time  of  transportation  and  delivery  in  general    247 

28.  When    personal    delivery    is    required. — The    common    law 

rule. — Bule   as  to  express  companies   2.51 

29.  When  personal  delivery  is  required. — Carriers  by  rail 255 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS, 


Page. 

6KCTION  30.  Delivery  hy  carriers   by   water    257 

31.  Delivery  where  consignee  refuses  to  receive   259 

32.  Delivery  of  goods  sent  f.  0.  D 2ti  1 

33.  Confusion   of   goods    26U 

34.  Statutory  penalties  for  refusing  to  deliver  promptly   268 

36.  Demand  of  goods  by  consignee    270 

36.  Waiver  of  right  of  action  for  wrongful  delivery   271 

37.  Right  of  carrier   to  demand   receipts  upon  delivery 273 


CHAPTER  VI. 
Conversion  by  Cabkier — Actions  Against  Caeeiee. 

Sscnon     1.  Carrier  is  liable  in  conversion  for  misfeasance 275 

2.  Receiving  goods  from  one  in  possession  not  conversion   . . .  283 

3.  Carrier  not  liable  in  conversion  for  mere  nonfeasance  ....  284 

4.  Action  for  loss  or  injury. — ^Nature  and  form  of  action 287 

5.  Actions     for     loss     or     injury. — Actions     ex    contractu    or 

ex  delicto 289 

6.  Actions  for  loss  or  injury. — Rights  of  action   290 

7.  Actions  for  loss  or  injury. — Payment  of  freight  291 

8.  Chistody  and  control  of  goods. — Rights  of  carrier. — ^Action 

by  carrier  against  third  persons   292 

9.  Actions  for  loss  or  injury. — Parties   293 

10.  Actions  for  delay. — ^Nature  and  form    294 

11.  Actions  for  delay. — Conditions  precedent    295 

12.  Actions   against  connecting  carriers. — Nature  and   form...  295 

13.  Actions  against  connecting  carriers. — Rights  of  action 296 

14.  Actions    against   connecting   carriers. — Parties 297 

16.  Actions  for  refusal  to  receive  or  transport  goods 298 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Liability  foe  Loss  oe  Damage. 

Section     1.  Liability  of  carrier  for  loss  or  damage 806 

2.  Distinction  between  act  of  God  and  inevitable  accident 307 

3.  Loss  or  damage  by  act  of  Grod,  vis  major,  or  inevitable  acci- 

dent   308 

4.  Proximate  cause  of  loss  or  injury 318 

6.  Loss  or  injury  by  the  public  enemy 323 

6.  Seizure  under   legal   process. — 'Attachment 327 

7.  Seizure  under  legal  process. — Garnishment 331 


yi 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Page. 

Section     8.  Seizure  under  police  regulations 332 

9.  Duty  of  carrier  after  disaster 334 

10.  Loss  or  injury  from  inherent  nature  of  goods 336 

IL  Care  required  of  carrier  in  general 338 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Liability  fok  Delay. 

Section     1.  Liability  for  delay  in  transportation 341 

2.  Usage  or  course  of  business 347 

3.  Diligence   required  of  carrier 348 

4.  Liability  where  there  is  a  special  contract 349 

5.  Liability  where  there  are  special  instructions  by  the  shipper.  352 

6.  Liability   under   statutes    requiring   prompt   forwarding    of 

freight 352 

7.  Delay   in   delivering  perishable  freight 354 

8.  Delay  must  have  been  the  proximate  cause  of  injury 356 

9.  Waiver  of  right  of  action  for  delay 358 

10.  Excuses  for  delay  generally 358 

11.  Unusual  floods  and  storms 362 

12.  Accumulation  or  shortage  of  cars  and  congestion  of  freight.  364 

13.  Low  water  or  freezing  of  water-way 367 

14.  Strikes  by  employes 368 

15.  Delay  caused  by  levy  on  goods 370 

16.  Limitation  of  liability  for  delay 371 

17.  Carrier's   duty   during   delay 371 

18.  Delay  concurring  with  inevitable  accident 371 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Liability  as  Warehouseman. 

Section     1.  Carrier's  liability  as  warehouseman  before  transportation..  374 

2.  Carrier's  liability  as  warehouseman  during  transportation.  378 

3.  Carrier's  liability  as  warehouseman  as  to  goods  awaiting  de- 

livery.— Massachusetts  rule 379 

4.  The  New  Hampshire  rule. — English  rule. — Origin  of  diflTer- 

ent  rules 383 

5.  Change  in  nature  of  liability  of  carrier  in  general 388 

6.  Conflict  of  laws 389 

7.  What  is  reasonable  time  for  removal  of  goods  generally. . .  390 

8.  Time  extended  by  failure  or  refusal  to  deliver 395 

9.  Notice  to  consignee  held  not  essential 396 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.  ^j 

Page. 

SECTION  10.  Necessity  of  notice  maintained 397 

11.  Suificiency  of  notice 399 

12.  Notice   to  consignor 400 

13.  Liability  of  connecting  carriers 402 

14.  The   burden  of  proof 403 

15.  Effect  of  special  contract  or  usage  on  rule 403 

16.  Duty  of  carrier  as  warehouseman  to  store  safely 407 

17.  Carrier's  liability  as  warehouseman  for  negligence 409 

18.  Statute  making  railroad  company  liable  for  losses  by  fire..  414 

19.  Proximate  cause  of  loss 415 


CHAPTER  X. 

Limitation  of  Liability. 

Section     1.  Limitation  of  carrier's  liability  generally 41g 

2.  Operation  and  effect  of  limitation  in  general 419 

3.  Limitation  by  public  notice 424 

4.  Limitation  by  special  contract 428 

5.  Special  contract  must  be  express  and  will  not  be  presumed.  433 

6.  Contract  need  not  be  signed  by  shipper  unless  required  by 

statute 434 

7.  Where  there  are  two  contracts  limiting  liability.... 435. 

8.  Conflict  of  oral  and  written  agreements 43t>; 

9.  Contract  must  have  been  fairly  entered  into 438 

10.  Necessity   of    consideration 438, 

11.  Contract  signed  by  shipper  without  examination 444 

12.  Contract  must  have  been  made  at  time  of  shipment 445 

13.  Contract  must  be  legible  and  intelligible 447 

14.  By  what  law  validity  of  contract  is  determined 447 

15.  Who  may  make  special  contract 452 

16.  Carrier  may  not  limit  its  liability  for  negligence 453 

17.  The  New  York  rule 459 

18.  Rule  in  Illinois  and  Wisconsin 462 

19.  The   English    and    Canadian    rule 463 

20.  Reasons  upon  which  the  different  rules  are  based 466 

21.  Liabilities  subject  to  limitation 468 

22.  Mode  or  form  of  limitation. — Bill  of  lading  or  shipping  re- 

ceipt   471 

23.  Limitation  of  time  in  which  to  bring  suit 477 

24.  Requirement    of    notice    of    loss    or    presentation    of   claim 

within  fixed  time 480 

25.  To  what  damages  stipulation  does  not  apply 484 

26.  Limitation  of  liability  as  ground  for  defense. — Pleading...  485 


Viii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Paokl 
Sbotion  27.  Limitatiou  of  liability  as  ground  of  defense. — Presumptions 

and   burden  of  proof 486 

28.  Stipulation   i-equiring  claim  to   be  made  before  removal  of 

goods 487 

29.  Limitation  of  liability  to  forwarder  or  warehouseman....  488 

30.  Limitation   of   amount  of   liability 490 

3L  Limitation  of  amount  wliere  value  is  not  disclosed 509 

32.  Limitation  of  amount  where  loss  is  caused  by  negligence  or 

wrongful  act  of  carrier 510 

83.  Stipulations  that  measure  of  damages  shall  be  invoice  value 

or  market  price  at  place  of  shipment 51tt 

84.  Construction  of  special  contracts 517 

35.  When  stipulations  of  contract  inoperative 521 

36.  Fraudulent   concealment   or   misrepresentation   of   value   by 

shipper 522 

37.  Carrier's  duty  to  inquire  as  to  value  of  property 62* 

38.  Shipper's  duty  to  state  value  and  character  of  goods 52T 


CHAPTER  XI. 

Caeeiee's  Relation  to  Goods  and  Authority  of  Agents. 

Bbotion     1.  Carrier's  relation  to  goods. — Rights  of  the  carrier 529 

2.  Power  and  authority  of  carrier's  general  freight  agents....  533 

3.  Powers   and   authority  of  local   agents 538 

4.  Authority  of  other   agents  and  employes 545 

5.  Carrier    and   insurance   company 546 

CHAPTER  XIL 

!N^EGLIGENCE   OF    CaRRIER. 

Sboxiok     1.  General  rule  of  liability  as  to  negligence  of  carrier 548 

2.  Negligence  must  have  been  proximate  cause  of  injury 552 

3.  Negligence  in  stowage  of  goods 552 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

Contributory  ISTegligence  of  Shipper. 

SeotioIT     1.  Contributory    negligence   of   shipper   generally 5.55 

2.  Defective  packing  or  marking    553 

3.  Goods  improperly  loaded 5(J0 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


IX 


Section    4.  Liability  of  shipper  or  consignee  to  carrier  for  negligence 

in  unloading 662 

5.  Liability  of  shipper  for  injury  caused  by  goods  of  dangerous 

character 563 

6.  Goods    lost   because   of   defects   in   cars   or   appliances   fur- 

nished by  carrier 565 

7.  Goods   lost   because   of   defects   in   appliances   furnished  by 

shipper 567 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
Peesumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof. 

(Section     1.  Presumptions  and  burden  of  proof  generally 568 

2.  Presumption  as  to  state  of  goods  when  received 573 

3.  Defense  of  loss  by  the  act  of  God 574 

4.  Where  goods  lost  consist  of  several  kinds 575 

6.  Where  liability  is  limited  by  special  contract 57o 

6.  Proof  of  loss  by  fire  under  contract  limiting  liability 578 

7.  Where  carrier  is  merely  a  warehouseman 57fl 


TOLUME   n. 


CHAPTER  XV. 


Damages. 

BiX^TiON     1.  Measure  of  damages  in  case  of  loss  of  goods 581 

2.  Interest  as  part  of  damages 587 

3.  Freight  charges,  advances  and  attorney's  fees 590 

4.  Damages  where  goods  are  only   injured 592 

5.  Measure  of  damages  in  case  of  delay 595 

6.  Damages  for  refusal  or  failure  to  carry 60!) 

7.  Damages   for  refusal  to  deliver 611 

8.  Damages    for   misdelivery 612 

9.  Damages  where  goods  have  no  market  value 613 

10.  Damages  for  mental   sviflering 614 

11.  Remote  and  speculative  damages 615 

12.  Contract  of  sale  as  measure  of  damag<'s. 617 

13.  Damages  for  loss  or  delay  in  delivery  of  goods  intended  for 

a  specific  purpose 618 

14.  Prospective,   contingent,   or   possible   consequences 623 


3t  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Page. 
CHAPTER  XVI. 

Carrier's  Lien. 

Seottow     1.  Carrier's  lien  for  charges 625 

2.  Carrier's  lion  for  general  balance  due 629 

3.  What  carriers  are  entitled  to  lien 631 

4.  What  property   lien   applies   to 632 

5.  When  lien   attaches 634 

6.  Delivery  of  goods  and  payment  of  freight 635 

7.  Lien  of  carrier  where  consignee  fails  or  refuses  to  receive..  635 

8.  Lie»  of  the  last  of  connecting  carriers 636 

9.  Priority  over  other  liens 640 

10.  How  lien  is  lost,  satisfied,  or  discharged 642 

11.  Lien  waived  by  express  agreement  or  stipulation  inconsist- 

ent  with   it 648 

12.  How  lien  is  enforced 649 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

Carrier's  Charges. 

Section     1.  Right  of  carrier  in  general   653 

2.  Rates  of  freight 655 

3.  Advances  for  charges  and  expenses 661 

4.  Charges  for  storage 662 

5.  Special  contracts  as  to  aanount  of  charges 664 

6.  Rebates 668 

7.  Persons  liable  for  charges 669 

8.  Payment  or  tender  of  charges 673 

9.  Right  to  examine  goods  before  payment 675 

10.  Time  of  payment 676 

11.  Actions  for  rebates  and  advances 677 

12.  Actions  for  charges 680 

13.  Rights  of  connecting  carriers 683 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
Demurrage  and  Liability  of  Consignee  or  Owner  for  Delay. 

Seotioit     1.  Right  of  carrier  to  charge  demurrage 689 

2.  Liability  of  consignor,  where  consignee  does  not  accept  goods 

or  otherwise 693 

3.  Notice  of  regulations 694 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Xli 


Page. 

Sbction    4.  Construction  of  regulations 695 

5.  Sufficiency  of  notice  to  consignee  to  render  him  liable  for  de- 

murrage   699 

6.  Defense. — Setting  off  damages  in  action  for  demurrage ,  699 

7.  Amount  of  demurrage 700 

8.  Lien  for  demurrage.  .  ,    701 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

DiSCEIMINATION    AND    OvERCHAEGE. 

SEcnON     1.  Eights  and  liabilities  of  carrier  in  general 704 

2.  Unlawful  discrimination 704 

3.  Excessive  charges 711 

4.  Actions  for   discrimination 716 

5.  Actions  for  excess  of  charges  paid 720 


CHAPTER  XX. 
Connecting  Caeeiees. 

Section     1.  Who   are  connecting  carriers 727 

2.  Relation  of  connecting  carriers  to  shipper  and  to  each  other.  728 

3.  Carrier  not  bound  to  carry  beyond  its  own  line 729 

4.  Delivery   to   succeeding  carrier , 730 

6.  Notice  of  arrival  of  goods 732 

6.  Duty  to  receive  goods  from  connecting  carrier......... 733 

7.  Liability  for  delay 734 

8.  Liability  of  initial  carrier  for  losa  or  injury  limited  to  its 

own  line 738 

0.  Liability  of  initial  carrier  for  loss  or  injury  extends  over 

whole  route 742 

10.  Liability  of  intermediate  carriers 745 

11.  Liability  of  terminal  carrier 749 

12.  Liability  for  miscarriage  or  diversion  of  goods 751 

13.  Special  contracts  for  through  transportation 753 

14.  What  is  sufficient  to  establish  a  through  contract 756 

15.  Charging  and  collecting  entire  freight  in  advance 758 

16.  Collection  of  entire  charges  by  terminal  carrier 759 

17.  Accepting  goods  to  be  transported  to  or  delivered  to  a  cer- 

tain point 760 

18.  Carrier  as  forwarder  or  warehouseman 761 

19.  Limitation  of  carrier's  liability  to  its  own  line 764 


Xii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Paqb. 

Section  20.  When  conni^cting  carriers  entitled  to  benefit  of  limitations.  770 

21.  What  coustitutes  delivery  to  n  conn ic ling  carrier 773 

22.  Notice  to  connoetitig  ciuriej   of  arrival  of  gooda 774 

23.  Presumptiona  and  burden  of  prout 776 

24.  Connecting  lines  as  partners 778 

25.  Rights  of  connictiiig  carriers  as  to  charges 781 

CHAPTER  XXL 
Caeriers  of  Live  Stock. 

Skction     1.  Carriers  of  live  stock  are  common  carriers 784 

2.  Nature  of  carrier'*  duties  and  liabilities  in  general 78;") 

3.  Duty  to  receive  and  carry 787 

4.  Duties  in   respect  to  transportation 790 

5.  Duty  in  respect  to  facilities  and  means  of  transportation..  792 

6.  Duties  as  to  mode  and  means  of  transportation 79.3 

7.  Stock  pens  and  yards 797 

8.  Duty  in  respect  to  loading  and  unloading  live  stock 801 

9.  Shipper's  knowledge  of  defects  in  cars 80:{ 

10.  Duty  to  provide  food,  water,  and  rest  for  stock 8()> 

11.  Duty   to   provide   food,   water   and   rest   under   Federal   28- 

hour    law 809 

12.  Where  shipper  assumes  duty  of  caring  for  stock 814 

13.  Other  duties  in   respect  to  transportation 818 

14.  Statutes  limiting  confinement  of  cattle 820 

15.  Liability  for   loss  or   irijury 821 

16.  Liability  for  loss  or  injury  of  stock  awaiting  transportation 

or  delivery 828 

17.  Inherent  nature,  propensities,  or  vices 829 

18.  Commencement  and  termination  of  liability 832 

19.  Liability  for  delay  in  transportation  or  delivery 834 

20.  Delay  by  stoppage  for  food,  rest,  and  water. . .  843 

21.  Delivery  to  carrier 846 

22.  Delivery   by  carrier 847 

23.  Contributory  negligence  of  owner 851 

24.  Loss  or  injury. — Proximate  cause 856 

25.  Measure  of  damages 858 

26.  Limitation  of  liability 870 

27.  Stipulations   that  shipper  will   accompany   stock,   load   and 

unload 873 

28.  Injuries  caused  by  vicioiisness  of  animals  or  defects  in  cars.  878 

29.  Stipulations   as  to   claims  for   damages 880 

30.  Limitation  of  liability  to  a  specified  amount 889 

31 .  Loss  or  injury  due  to  carrier's  neg:ligence 895 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.  Xui 

Page. 

Sbotzon  32.  Stipulation  requiring  shipper  to  report  condition  of  stock. .  898 

33.  Limitations   rendered   inoperative 899 

34.  Waiver  of  notice  or  defects  tlierein 900 

35.  Presumptions  and  burden  of  proof 903 

36.  Liability  of  connecting  carriers 907 

37.  Connecting  carriers. — Loss  or  injury 910 

38.  Delivery  to  connecting  carrier 913 

39.  Food,  water,  and  rest  under  28-hour  law 915 

40.  Delay  in  transportation  or  delivery 917 

41.  Power  to  limit  liability 920 

42.  Validity  of  contract  limiting  liability 922 

43.  Operation   and   effect  of   limitation 923 

44.  Liability  for   improper   loading  or  unloading 926 

45.  Liability  for  animals  escaping 927 

46.  Special  contract  for  transportation 929 

47.  Validity  of  contract 931 

48.  Modification  or  merger 934 

49.  Actions  against  carriers  of  live  stock. — ^Nature  and  form  of 


action. 


936 


50.  Rights  of  action 937 

51,  Defenses 939 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

Cakeiees  of  Passengees. 

Smrnow     l.  Definition  and  nature  of  carriers  of  .passengers 944 

2.  Relation   between   carrier   and   passenger 946 

3.  Contract  of  carriage. — By  what  law  governed 949 

4.  Who  are  passengers. — In  general 954 

6.  Who  are  passengers. — Changing  cars  or  leaving  train  tem- 
porarily.— Persons  transferring 96(i 

6.  Who  are   passengers. — Conveyances   and   places   not   proper 

for  passengers 964 

7.  Who    are    passengers. — Invitation    or    acquiescence    of    car- 


rier's  employes. 


966 

8.  Commencement  of  relation. — In  general 972 

9    Commencement  of  relation. — Going  to  or  awaiting  train  or 

car 978 

10.  Commencement  of  relation.— Signaling  car  or  train  to  stop 

and  boarding  the  same 982 

11.  Purchase  of  ticket 984 

12.  Entry  of  vehicle  of  carrier 986 

13.  Parmont   of   fare 990 

14.  Chilflron  riding  without  paymont  of  fare 996 


XIV 


TABLE  OF  CONTEJSITS. 


Page. 

Section  15.  Termination  of  relation. — In  general 996 

It).  Termiuatiou  of  relation. — Keaciiing  destination  and  leaving 

tram  or  carrier's  premises 1000 

17.  Termination   of   relation. — Changing   cars   or   leaving  train 

temporarily. — Persons   transferring 1004- 

18.  Termination  of  relation  by  failing  to  alight  at  destination..  1008 

19.  Termination  of  relation  by  failing  to  use  way  provided  for 

departing  from   premises 1009 

20.  Leaving  the  vehicle  of  carrier 1011 

21.  After  leaving  vehicle  of  carrier 1012 

22.  Stop-overs  on  continuous  passage  tickets 1014 

23.  Who  are  not  passengers 1016 

24.  Limited   and   unlimited  tickets 1024 

25.  Nontransferable  tickets 1028 

26.  Persons   riding  gratuitously   generally 1030 

27.  Persons  riding  on  passes 1032 

28.  Persons  riding  on  drover's  pass. — Shippers  and  their  agents 

accompanying  shipment 1036 

29.  Persons  riding  on  trains  not  generally  used  for  passengers.  1039 

30.  Persons   riding   on    engines 1042 

31.  Persons    riding   on   hand   cars 1044 

32.  Employes  of  others  carried  under  contract  with  carrier...  1045 

33.  Employes  of  others  carried  under  contract. — Mail  clerks..  1048 

34.  Employes  of  others  carried  under  contract. — Express  mes- 

sengers   1051 

35.  Persons  riding  on  freight  trains 1055 

36.  Persons   accompanying  passengers 1060 

37.  Employes   of   carrier   as   passengers 1062 

38.  Employes  of  carrier  as  passengers  in  elevators 1067 

39.  Rules  and  regulations  of  the  carrier 1067 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

Duties  and  Liabilities  of  Carriers  of  Passengers. 

Section     1.  Care  required  of  carrier  in  general 1079 

2.  Sufficiency    and    safety   of   means   of    transportation. — Rail- 

road tracks  and  roadbeds 1084 

3.  Sufficiency  and  safety  of  means   of  transportation. — Street 

railroads 1087 

4.  Sufficiency  and  safety  of  means  of  transportation. — Defects 

in  street  cars 1089 

5.  Sufficiency  and  safety  of  means  of  transportation. — Eleva- 

tors   1094 

6.  Obstructions  on  or  near  tracks 1097 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


XT 


Page. 

Section    7.  Obatructions  on  or  near  tracks. — Street   railroads 1100 

8.  Duty  of  railroad  company  to  fence  tracks. — Duty  to  avoid 

collision  with  cattle 1103 

9.  Locomotives,  cars,  and   appliances 1105 

10.  Locomotives,  cars,  and  appliances. — Cars  of  other  carriers.  1112 

11.  Improved  appliances  and  methods 1113 

12.  Duty  of  inspection 1115 

13.  Liability  for  latent  defects 1117 

14.  Negligence  of   persons   engaged    in   construction   or   manu- 

facture     1119 

15.  Liability   of   carrier   employing   leased   lines   or   using   cars 

of   another  company 1120 

16.  Liability   for   injuries   caused   by   inevitable   accident 1122 

17.  Means   and   appliances   for   receiving  and   discharging   pas- 

sengers     1124 

18.  Passengers  carriers  by  stage  coaches 1128 

19.  Carriers  of  passengers  by  water 1129 

20.  Carrier's  liability  as  to  employment  of  servants 1130 

21.  Duty  to  receive  and  transport  passengers 1134 

22.  Persons  who  may  be  refused  transportation 1139 

23.  When  refusal  to  transport  must  be  made 1144 

24.  Duty  to  carry  passengers  on  freight  and  special  trains 1144 

25.  Duty   of  carrier   to  protect  passengers 1146 

26.  Acts  and  omissions  of  carrier's  employes 1148 

27.  Who  are  employes 1151 

28.  The  New  York  rule 1155 

29.  Acts  of  employes  for  which  carrier  is  liable. — In  general...    1156 

30.  Acts  of  employes  for  which  carrier  is  liable. — Elevators...    1164 

31.  Carrier's  liability  for  assaults  by  servants 1166 

32.  Liability  for  insult  and  abuse  by  servants 1175 

33.  Liability  for  expulsion  by  servants 1180 

34.  Liability  for  false  arrest  of  passenger 1181 

35.  Liability  for  acts  of  fellow-passengers  or  other  third  per- 

sons     ^185 

36.  Liability  for  assaults  by  passengers  or  other  third  persons.   1189 

37.  Indecent  language  and  conduct  of  fellow-passengers  or  in- 

truders    1^^^ 

38.  Duty  to  protect  from  acts  of  drunken  passengers 1193 

39.  Care  required  as  to  intoxicated  persons 1195 

40.  Protection   from   accidental   injuries 1198 

41.  Protection  from  incidental  injuries.— ^In  general 1200 

42.  Same  subject. — Duty  to  protect  passengers  from  falling  or 

flying   objects 1204 

43.  Same  subject.— Injuries  caused  by  opening  or  shutting  door.  1207 

44.  Care  of  carrier  in  the  carriage  of  passengers 1210 


XVI 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Page. 
Skctioii  45.  Management   of   conveyance. — iSudden   jerks   and   jolts 1220 

46.  Duty    of   carrier    to    announce   stations tl'M 

47.  Duty  of  carrier  to  stop  at  stations 122(> 

48.  Warning    of    departure    of    trains 1230 

49.  Duty  to  provide  sate  means  of  ingress  and  egress J2;il 

50.  Reationable   time   for    iiipress   and   egress 1231) 

51.  Duty  to  warn,  instruct,  or  inform  passengers 1241 

52.  Duty  to  assist  intiim,  aged,  and  helpless  j)assengers 1245 

53.  Care  as  to   persons    under   disability 1249 

54.  Care  required  as  to  children 1252 

55.  Duty  to  carry  to  point  of  destination 12.')4 

56.  Carrying  passengers   beyond   deslination 125t> 

57.  Duty  to  carry  promptly 1259 

58.  Safety  of  passengers 1261 

59.  Safety  of  passengers  on   freight  and  other  trains 1264 

60.  Duty  of  carrier  to  provide  passengers  with  seats 1265 

61.  Liability   for  injuries  caused  by  collision 1267 

62.  Duty  of  carrier  for  safety  of  sick  passengers 1270 

63.  Persons  to  whom  carrier  is  liable 1274 

64.  Persons  awaiting  arrival  of  ^passengers  or  boarding  trains 

to  meet  incoming  passengers 1281 

65.  Persons    accompanying    passengers   to    station    or    on    board 

cars  or  vessels 128:i 

66.  Persons  on  wrong  train 1284 

67.  Passengers  acting  as  employes 1285 

68.  Persons  riding  at  invitation  or  by  acquiescence  of  employes.  1287 

CHAPTEE  XXIV. 

Passenger's  Baggage  or  Effects. 

Section     1.  Articles   constituting   personal   baggage 1290 

2.  Duty  to  carry  baggage 1302 

3.  Liability  of  carrier  for  loss  or  injury 1306 

4.  Loss  or  injury  of  money  or  valuables 1311 

5.  Notice  to  carrier  of  nature  and  value  of  goods 1312 

6.  Liability  of  carrier  for  baggage  generally ISlfi 

7.  Liability  for  loss  or  injury  of  merchandise  other  than  per- 

sonal baggage 132(» 

8.  Loss  or  injury  of  property  under  control  of  passenger 1322 

0.  Proximate  cause  of  loss  or  injury  of  baggage 1325 

10.  Loss  or  injury  of  baggage. — Contributory  negligence  of  pas- 

senger     1326 

11.  Limitation   of   liability 1328 

12.  Limitation  of  liability. — Power  to  limit  liability 1334 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.  XVU 

Page. 
Sbotiok  13.  Mode  and  form  of  Imitation  in  general 1336 

14.  Provisions  in  ticket,  check,  or  receipt 1338 

15.  Charges  and  lien  for  transportation  of  baggage 134:i 

16.  Baggage  checks  mere  receipts  or  vouchers 1344 

17.  Commencement  and  termination  of   liability 1347 

18.  Carrier's  liability   as   warehouseman    1352 

19    Carrier's  liability  as  warehouseman. — Liability  before  ship- 
ment  • 1354 

20.  Carrier's  liability  as  warehouseman. — Liability  after  reach- 

ing destination 13o5 

21.  Connecting  carriers ^^'''^ 

22.  Liability  of   initial   carrier 1365 

23.  Liability  of  final  carrier 1368 

24.  Actions  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  passenger's  baggage 1370 

25.  Actions  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  passenger's  baggage.— Who 

may  bring  the  action 1374 

26.  Same  subject.— Evidence.— Burden  of  proof 1377 

27.  Same  subject. — Damages 1383 

28.  Same  subject.— Questions  for  jury.- Instructions 1386 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

Ejection  of  Passengees. 

anmOH     1    Ejection   of    passenger    for    failure    or    refusal    to    procure 

ticket  or  pay  fare 1389 

2    Passenger  entitled  to  reasonable  time  to  pay  fare  or  procure 

ticket 1393 

3.  Extra  fare  when  paid  on  train 1393 

4.  Tender  or  payment  of  fare  to  avoid  ejection 1396 

5.  Ejection  of  intoxicated  passengers 1401 

6.  Ejection  of   disorderly   passengers 1407 

7.  Ejection  for  violation  of  reasonable  rules  of  the  carrier...  1408 

8.  Defective  or  invalid  ticket 1*1* 

9.  Ejection  of  persons  riding  on  freight  trains 1423 

10.  Manner   of   ejection 14" 

11.  Place  of  ejection 

12.  Use  of  force  and  resistance.— Right  to  use  necessary  force.  1431 

13.  Use  of  force  and  resistance.— Excessive  force 1433 

14.  Use  of  force  and  resistance.- Resistance 1435 

16.  Negligence  in  ejecting  person  under  disability 1438 

16.  Ejection  of  intruders  and  trespassers , 1439 

17.  Repayment  of  fare  or  return  of  ticket 1442 

18.  Readmission  after  reject  ion ^444 

19.  Proximate  cause  of  injury 1446 


iVlU 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Page. 


VOLUMi;  III. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 
Limitation  of  Cakrier's  Liability. 

Section     L  Limitation  of  carrier's  liability  generally 1449 

2.  Essentials  of  contract  limiting  liability  for  negligence 1454 

3.  Limitation  of  liability  for  negligence 1457 

4.  The  New  York  rule 1461 

5.  The  English  rule 1463 

6.  Limitation  of  liability  for  negligence  as  to  particular  classes 

of  passengers 1464 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 

Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof. 

Section     1.  Presumptions  as  to  negligence  from  mere  proof  of  injury..  1474 

2.  Acts  of  servants  or  defects  in  instrumentalities  of  transpor- 

tation   1486 

3.  Breaking   of   machinery    or    instrumentalities,    and    defects 

therein 1490 

4.  Presumption   arising   from   collisions 1494 

5.  Presumptions  arising  from  derailment  of  train  or  car 1499 

6.  Presumption  arising  from  defects   in  means  of  transporta- 

tion   1504 

7.  Presumption  of  negligence  as  to  injuries  to  persons  other 

than   passengers 1507 

8.  Reasons  for  presumption  of  negligence 1511 

9.  Rebutting  presumption 1512 

10.  Other  presumptions 1513 

11.  Presumptions  as  to  contributory  negligence 1515 

12.  Presumption  arising  from  instinct  of  self-preservation....  1517 

13.  Presumption  and  burden  of  proof  where  injury  is  caused  by 

sudden  jerks,  or  sudden  or  premature  starting  of  the  car.  1520 

14.  Presumption  where  person  injured  is  passenger  on  freight 

train 1526 

15.  Where  injuries  are  caused  by  explosion  or  electric  shock.  .  .  1527 

16.  Injuries  to  passenger  in   elevator 1529 

17.  Presumption   as  to  carrier's  knowledge  of  violation  of   its 

rules 1531 

18.  Statutory  regulations 1531 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


XIX 


Page. 
Section  19.  The  burden  of  proving  negligence 1533 

20.  The  burden  of  proof  as  to  contributory  negligence 1541 

21.  Presumptions  and  burden  of  proof  as  to  contributory  negli- 

gence     1547 

22.  Presumptions  and  burden  of  proof  in  actions  for  assault. . .   1550 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 
Evidence. 

Section     1.  Authority,  competency,  and  negligence  of  servants 1552 

2.  Condition  of  means  of  transportation 1553 

3.  Evidence  of  other  and  similar  accidents 1555 

4.  Subsequent  repairs  and  precautions 1556 

5.  Custom  or  habit  of  carrier  or  passenger 1557 

6.  Tickets  as  evidence  of  contract  for  transportation 1558 

7.  Declarations  and  admissions  of  injured  passengers 1559 

8.  Declarations  and  admissions  of  employes 1562 

9.  Declarations  and  conduct  of  other  persons 1564 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

CONTEIBUTOKY   iN^EGIilGENCE. 

Section     1.  Contributory  negligence  must  be  proximate  cause  of  injury.  1567 

2.  Acts  in  disregard  of  warning  or  disobedience  of  carrier's 

rules 1^^^ 

3.  Acts  by  permission  or  direction  of  carrier's  employes 1575 

4.  Sudden  peril. — Acts   in  emergencies. 1580 

5.  Contributory  negligence  of  children 1587 

6.  Contributory  negligence  of  aged  or  infirm  persons 1591 

7.  Contributory    negligence    of    parents,    guardians,    or    custo- 

dians   1^^^ 

8.  Intoxication  as   evidence  of  contributory  negligence 1595 

9.  Contributory  negligence  as  a  question  of  law  or  fact 1597 

10.  Traveling   in   violation  of   statute  not  contributory   negli- 

gence   1^^^ 

11.  Awaiting  and   seeking  transportation 1600 

12.  Entering  conveyance 1^07 

13.  Entering  conveyance. — Elevators.  .  . 1612 

14.  Boarding  train  or  car  in  motion 1612 

15.  Place  of  entering  cars  or  train 1624 

16.  Riding  in  dangerous  position 1626 

17.  Standing  in  car 1631 

18.  Riding  on  platform,  steps,  or  running  board 1637 


Xs  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Page. 

Section  10.  Ridinjr  with  part  of  poraou  projecting  from  window lGr)5 

20.  Riding  in  elevator lOSH 

21.  Persons   aiToiupanying   live   stock. IGOD 

22.  Changing    position 165ft 

23.  Pa^ssing    from    one   car    to  another KiGl 

24.  Leaving  tonvoyance lUt)4 

25.  Preparing  to  leave  conveyance  before  it  stops lUfiS 

26.  Alighting  at  place  otlier  than  station  or  platform 1670 

27.  Alighting  at  wrong  end  or  part  of  ear,  or  on  wrong  side  of 

train 1670 

2S.  Alighting  at    improper   ])lace  or   in  improper  manner 1671 

29.  Aligliting  from  train  or  ears  in  motion 1675 

30.  Alighting  from  moving  tar  on  failure  to  stop  at  station...  1685 

31.  Alighting  from  moving  car  on  failure  to  stop  for  sufficient 

time 1686 

32.  Defective  or  unlighted  platform 1687 

33.  Leaving   premises   by  improper   course 1687 

34.  Standing  near  or  between  tracks   and  crossing   intervening 

tracks 1688 

35.  Crossing   other   tracks 1693 

36.  Negligence  as  to  incidental  dangers 1695 

37.  Injury  avoidable  by  care  on  part  of  carrier 1697 

38.  Willful    injury    by   carrier's   employes 1700 

CHAPTER  XXX. 

Damages. 

Section     1.  Compensation   is   the  general    rule  as   to  measure   of  dam- 
ages   1701 

2.  Injury  aggravated  by  passenger's  negligence  or  imprudence.  1704 

3.  Injury  aggravated  by   existing  disease  or   injury 1705 

4.  Damages   for   failure   to  carry 1707 

5.  Damages   for   setting   down   passenger   at   place   other  than 

destination 1709 

6.  Damages  for   ejection   or  assault  of  passenger 1710 

7.  Damages   for  personal   injuries 1714 

8.  Mental  suffering  as  distinct  cause  of  action  or  element  of 

damage 1718 

9.  Exemplary  damages. — Malice  or   willfulness 1719 

10.  Exemplary   damages. — Cross    negligence 1722 

11.  Exemplary   damages   for   carrier's   acts 1723 

12.  Exemplary  damages  for  acts  of  servants 1724 

13.  Elements  affecting  the  amount  of  damages 1726 

?                  14.  Excessive   or   inadequate   damages 1728 


TABLE  OF  CONTEi^TS.  XiL 

Pa«e. 
CHAPTER  XXXL 

Inteestate  and  Inteenatiowal  Tbanspoktation — What  Con- 
stitutes Commerce — Federal  Regulation. 

SBCmON     1.  Commerce   defined 1730 

2.  The  commerce  clause  in  the  Constitution. — What  is  inter- 

state commerce 1732 

3.  Commerce  as   including  intercourse 1735 

4.  Commerce   with   foreign   nations 1737 

6.  Commerce  among  the  several  States 1737 

6.  Historical   comment 1739 

7.  Commencement  of  Federal   regulation 1745 

8.  The   Railroad   Act   of    1866 174!> 

9.  The  Granger  Cases 1752 

10.  The   Interstate  Commerce  Act 1754 

CHAPTER  XXXII. 
Interstate  and  International  Transportation. 

Section     1.  Regulation  of  interstate  transportation 1758 

2.  The  Interstate   Commerce  Act  of   1887 1759 

3.  The  Railroad  Rate  Act  of   1906 17«3 

4.  The  Mann-Elkins  Act  of  1910 1770 

5.  The  purpose,  scope,  and  effect  of  the  acts 1771 

6.  Carriers  subject  to  the  acts 1775 

7.  Charges  must  be  reasonable  and  just 1780 

8.  Unjust  discrimination 1784 

9.  Unjust  discrimination   in  specific  cases 1789 

10.  Undue  or  unreasonable   preference  or  advantage 1793 

11.  Undue   preference   in   particular  cases 1798 

12.  Preference  and   discrimination. — In   general 1801 

13.  Wliat   constitutes   preference   or   discrimination 1806 

14.  Justification  or   defense 1812 

15.  Preference   or   discrimination  by  giving   rebates 1814 

16.  Discrimination   in  car   distribution 1818 

17.  No  discrimination  by  demand  of  prepayment  of  charges.  .  .  1822 

18.  Equal    facilities   for   interchange   of   traffic 1823 

19.  Charges  for  long  and    short  hauls 1827 

20.  Schedules  of  rates,   fares,  and  charges •  •  •  1832 

21.  Change  of  rates 1841 

22.  Charges   in  general 1^^2 

23.  Special    rates ^^'^^ 

24.  Pooling    of    freights    or    dividing    earnings 1848 

25.  Tnterniption    nf    eoTitiriuoiis    Piirriag<' 1851 


^^  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Page. 
Section  26.  Mileage,   excursion,   or  commutation  tickets 1853 

27.  Authority    of    Commission   as   to    regulations    or    practices 

affecting  rates.   .  .  ,    1854 

28.  Transportation  of  passengers 1857 

2&   The    commodities     clause. — Construction    and    constitution- 

ality 1859 

30.  Switching   privileges. — Construction   of   the  act 1866 

31.  Discrimination  as  to  switch  connections 1868 

32.  Power  of   the   Commission  to  fix   rates   under  amendments 

of  190G  and   1910 1871 

33.  Carriage  of  particular  articles 1874 

34.  Enforcement   of    the   act. — Judicial   proceedings   to    enforce 

regulations 1876 

35.  Contracts  in  violation  of  regulations 1882 

36.  Damages  for  violation  of   regulations 1886 

37.  The  common   law   in   interstate  commerce 1891 

38.  Common   law    remedies   of    the    State   courts    in    interstate 

commerce 1893 

39.  Commerce  Court  created. — Jurisdiction  and  powers 1896 

40.  Commerce  Court  abolished.— Jurisdiction  vested  in  it  trans- 

ferred to  and  vested  in  the  District  Courts 1901 

CHAPTER  XXXIII. 

Liability  of  Initial  Cakrieb  fok  Loss  oe  Damage  on  Con- 
necting Lines. — Limitation  of  Liability. 

Section     1.  Liability  of  initial  carrier  for  loss  or  injury  under  the  Car- 
mack  Amendment 1902 

2.  Constitutionality  of  the  act 1909 

3.  Limitation  of  amount  of  liability  to  agreed  value 1912 

4.  Limitation  of  liability.— In  general 1918 

5.  The  purpose  and  effect  of  the  act 1920 

6    Initial  interstate  carrier  cannot  limit  its  liability  to  its  own 

line 1924 

7.  What  law  governs. — Jurisdiction  of  courts 1925 

8.  Application   of  the   act  generally 1927 

CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

Offenses. — Penalties  fok  Violation  of  Regulations. — In- 
dictments.— Under  Interstate  Commerce  Act. 

Section     1.  Offenses  against  the  United  States. — Nature  and  elements 

of  crime 1929 

2.  Constitutionality  of   penal    and    criminal    provisions 1930 

3.  Construction  of  the  statute  as  a  penal  statute 1931 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Page. 
Section    4.  Summary  of  the  penal  and  criminal  provisions  of  the  stat- 

"^^ 1933 

5.  Rebates,  discriminations,  and  concessions  from  tariff  rates.    1940 

6.  Venue  of  prosecution  for  giving  or  receiving  rebates  and  for 

false  billing j942 

7.  Venue  of  prosecution  for  failure  to  file  a  rate  schedule 1944 

8.  Offenses    and   counts. — Duplicity I945 

9.  Parties   criminally   liable. — Joinder   of   parties 1947 

10.  Criminal   intent   or   knowledge 1950 

11.  Rebates  from  joint  tariff. — Liability  of  carrier  not  publish- 

ing or  filing  the   rate 1952 

12.  Judgment  for  giving  rebates  abated  by  death  of  the  accused.  1955 

13.  Free  passes  as  a  preference  or  discrimination 1955 

14.  Transporting  without  a  filed   rate 1956 

15.  False   billing,    classification,   weighing,   false   representation 

of  contents  of  package,  etc 1957 

16.  Conspiracies  to  commit  crime I959 

17.  Offenses   prosecuted   by   information I960 

18.  Indictments.   .   .   .   1961 

19.  Indictment     for    rebating. — Evidence. — Variance. — Drawing 

of  jury 1969 

20.  Limitation  of  prosecution 1972 

21.  Appeal. — Prejudical  error. — Defective  indictment 1972 

22.  Appeal. — Prejudicial  error. — Instructions  and  submission  to 

jury 1973 

23.  Hepburn  Act  prospective  only. — ^Effect  of  repealing  section.  1974 

24.  When  act  took  effect. — Time  when  rate  law  took  efi'ect 1976 

25.  Offenses 1976 

26.  Penalties  for  violation  of  regulations 1979 

27.  Penalties  for  violation  of  Federal  28-hour  Law 1982 

CHAPTER  XXXV. 

Exemptions   of   Owners   of   Vessels   from   Liability. — The 
Harter  Act  and  Other  Statutes. 

Section     1.  Statutory  exemptions  from  liability  in  general 1986 

2.  Statutory    exemption    from    liability   by    diligence    of   owner 

as  to  vessel. — In  general I993 

3.  Statutory   exemption   from   liability  by   diligence   of  owner 

as    to    vessel. — Seaworthiness,    manning,    equipment    and 
supplies 1996 

4.  Statutory   exemption   from   liability  by   diligence   of   owner 

as  to  vessel. —  Causes  of  loss  or  injury 2003 

5.  Limitation   of   liability  by    contract  or   bill   of  lading. — In 

general 2010 


xxiv  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Page. 

Section  6.  Limitation  of  liability  by  contract  or  bill  of  lading. — Ex- 
emption from  particular  risks  or  causes  of  loss. — In  gen- 
^ri»l 2016 

7.  Limitiition   of   liability    by   contract  or   bill    of   lading. — Ex- 

emption  from   particular   risks  or  causes   of  loss. — Man 

ner    of    loading    or    stowage 2022 

8.  Limitiition   of   liability   by  contra,  t  or  bill  of  lading. — E.\- 

emption  from   particular  risks  or  causes  of  loss. — Perils 

of  the  sea 2025 

9.  Limitation  of  liability  by  contract  or  bill   of   lading. — Ex- 

emption from  particular  risks  or  causes  of  loss. — Unsea- 
worthiness, or  defective  equipment  or  apparatus 202S 

10.  Limitation  of   liability  by  contract  or  bill  of  lading. — Re- 

quirements as  to  notice  and  time  to  sue  vessel 2032 

11.  Persons  liable  for  loss  or  damage 2034 

12.  Carriage   of   passengers. — Personal   injuries. — Limitation   of 

liability 203(; 

13.  Carriage   of   passengers. — Passengers'   baggage   or   effects. — 

Limitation  of  liability 2038 

APPENDIX. 

Contents 2043-2048 

The  Act  to  Regulate  Commerce   (Revised  to  January  1,  1914)  ....   2049-2098 

District  Court  Jurisdiction  Act 2099-2102 

Compulsory  Testimony  Act 2103 

Immunity  of  Witnesses  Act 2104 

Elkins  Act   2105-2109 

Expediting  Act   2110-2111 

Government-Aided  Railroad  and  Telegraph  Act 2112-2116 

Lake  Erie  and  Ohio  River  Ship  Canal  Act   (Sec.  17) 2142-2143 

Safety  Appliances  Acts 2117-2124 

Accidents  Reports  Act 2127-2128 

Arbitration    Act 2132-2139 

Hours  of  Service  Act 2144-2146 

Medal  of  Honor  Act 2140-2142 

Ash  Pan  Act 2147-2148 

Transportation  of  Explosives  Act 2149-2151 

Boiler  Inspection  Act    21.54-2150 

Block  Signal  Resolution 2125-2126 

Coal  and  Oil  Resolutions 2129-2131 

Street  Railways  Act 21 52-2153 

Act  to  Punish  Larceny  of  freight,  etc 2160-2161 

Harter.  Act 2162-2164 

Parcel  Post   Act    (Sec   8) 2165 

Index   to    Appendix 2167 

Index 2227 


T^BLE  OF  CJ^SES. 

(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


A. 

Aaron  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  27  Ohio 

L.  J.  183—266. 
Aaronson  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  23 

Misc.  Rep.  666 — 411. 
Abbe  V.  Eaton,  51  N.  Y,  410—272. 
Abbett   V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    30 

Minn.  482—1545. 
Abbey  v.  The  Robert  L.   Stevens,  22 

How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.),  78—56. 
Abbot  V.  ToUiver,  71   Wis.  64—1727. 
Abbott  Gin   Co.  v.   Missouri,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  57  Tex.  Civ.  App.  263—170. 
Abbott  V.  Johnstow^n,  etc.,  H.  R.  Co., 

80  N.  Y.  31—123,  1136. 
Abbott  V.  Oregon  R.  Co.,  46  Ore.  549 

—998. 
Abelson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 

Ark.   181—1574. 
Abilene   &,   S.   Ry.    Co.    v.    Burleson, 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  157  S.  W.  1177— 

1504. 
Abilene  Cotton  Oil  Co.  v.  Texas  &  P. 

Ry.  Co.   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  85  S.  W. 

1058—1879. 
Abraham  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 

23   Fed.  Rep.  315—88. 
Abrams  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87 

Wis.  485—463,  495,  806,  838,  1456. 
Abrams  v.  Piatt,  23  Misc.  R.  (N.  Y.), 

637—186. 
A  Cargo  of  Hard  Coal,  84  Fed.  495— 

646. 
Acheson  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  61  N.  Y.  653 — 139,  162. 
Ackerson  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  32  N.  J.  L. 

2.54—1725. 
Ackley   v.   Kellogg,   8   Cow    (N.   Y.), 

223—80. 
A.   C.   L.   Haase  &   Sons   Fish   Co.   v. 

Merchants'    Despatch    Transp.    Co., 

143  Mo.  App.  42—328,  370,  424. 
Adams  v.  Blankenstein,  2  Cal.  413 — 

207. 
Adams  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. (Iowa), 

135  N.  W.  21—1406,   1427,   1441. 
Adams  v.  Clark,  9  Cush.   (Mass.),  215 

—651. 
Adams  v.  Colorado  &  S.  Ry.  Co.,  49 

Colo.  475—880,  883,  884,  897,  901. 


Adams  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   74 

Mo.  553—1564,  1580. 
Adams  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  4  C.  P.  739—1584. 
Adams  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87 

Wis.  485—1457. 
Adams  v.  Missouri  Pac.   R.  Co.,   100 

Mo.  555—1232. 
Adams  v.  Xashvllle,  95  U.  S.  19 — 389. 
Adams  v.  New  Orleans  Tow-Boat  Co., 

11   La.   46—75. 
Adams  v.  O'Connor,  100  Mass.  515 — 

637. 
Adams  v.   Scott,   104   Mass,    164—37. 

328,  331,  332. 
Adams   v.   St.   Louis   S.   W.   Ry.   Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  137  S.  W.  437— 

1271,   1480. 
Adams  v.   Union   Ry.   Co.,   80   N.   Y. 

Supp.  264—1486. 
Adams  v.  Washington  &  G.  R.  Co.,  9 

App.   D.    C.   26—1223,    1476,    1489, 

1639. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Berrv  &  Whit- 
more  Co.,  35  App.  D.  C. '208— 512. 
Adams   Express   Co.   v.   Bratton,    106 

111.  App.  563—427,  905. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Byers,  95  N.  E. 

518—507. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Carnahan,  29 

Ind.  App.  606,  63  N.  E.  245—430. 

440,  471,  493.  521. 
Adams    Express    Co.    v.    Chamberlin- 

Johnsori-Du  Bose  Co.,   138  Ga.  455 

— 474,  512. 
Adams    Express    Co.    v.    Cressop,     6 

Bush    (Ky.),  572—7. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Croninger,  226 

U.    S.    491—500.    .502,    1912,    1913, 

1914,  1915. 
Adams    Express    Co.    v.    Darnell,    31 

Ind.  20—7,  26,  198,  254,  264. 
Adams   Express   Co.   v.    Fendrick,   38 

Ind.  150—455,  1458. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Green,  112  Va. 

527—516. 
Adams    Express    Co.    v.    Guthrie,    9 

Bush    (Ky.),  78—455. 
Adams    Express    Co.    v.    Harris,    120 

Ind.    73—455,    493,    647,    651,    675, 

772. 


(xxv) 


XXVI 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Haynes,  42  111. 

89 — 433,  1452,  1455,  1400. 
Adams   Express   Co.  v.   Hibbard,   145 

Ky.  SIS— 347. 
Adains  Express  Co.  v.  Hoeing,  88  Ky. 

373—494. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Holmes  (Pa.), 

9  Atl.  1G6— 495,  570. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Holmes   (Pa.), 

8  Cent.  Kep.  155—1459. 
Adams    Express    Co.    v.    Jackson,    92 

Tenn.  32G— 310,  364,  838. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  McConncll,  27 

Kan.  23S — 260. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  McDonough,  6 

Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  Rep.  539—260. 
Adams    Express    Co.    v.    Mellichamp, 

138  Ga.  443—474. 
Adams   Express   Co.   v.   MuUins,   212 

U.   S.   311—328. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Nock,  2  Duv. 

(Ky.),  562—118,  429,  430,  438,  455, 

1452. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Reagan,  29  Ind. 

21 — i55,  481,  482,  1450. 
Adams   Express   Co.   v.    Schlessinger, 

75  Pa.  St.  246—228. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Scott,  113  Va. 

1_824,  840,  879. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Sharpless,  77 

Pa.  St.  516—458,  1456. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Stettaners,  61 

111.    184—425,   433,   455,   463,   493, 

897. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Walker,  26  Ky. 

Law  Rep.   1025—891,  903. 
Adams      Express    Co.      v.      Williams 

(Ark.),  14  S.  W.  40—356. 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Wilson,  81  111. 

339—743. 
A.  D.  Blowers  &  Co.  v.  Canadian  Pac. 

R.  Co.,  155  Fed.  935—277. 
Addyston  Pipe  &  Steel  Co.  v.  United 

States,  175  U.  S.  211—1733,  1758. 
Adger  v.  Blue  Ridge  R.  Co.,  71  S.  C. 

213—1368. 
Aetna  Ins.  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  49  N.  Y. 

616—354,  472,  759,  765,  767,  771, 

774. 
Aetna  Ins.  Co.  v.    Wheeler,  5   Lans. 

(N.  Y.),  480—241. 
Aetna  Nat.  Bank  v.  Water  Power  Co., 

58  Mo.  App.  532—191. 
Agnew  V.   Steamer   Contra  Costa,  27 

Cal.  425—33,  574,  821. 


A.  G.  Russell  Co.  v.  Miller,  98  Mias. 

185—132. 
Ahern  v.  Minneapolis  St.  R.  Co.,  102 

Minn.  435—949. 
Ahlbock  V.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

Minn.  424—1345. 
Aigen    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    132 

Mass.  423—739,  746,  749,  778,  781. 
Aiken  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Iowa 

363—189,  788. 
Aiken  v.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  104  La. 

162—1117. 
Aiken  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  80  Mo.  App. 

8—1340,  1366. 
Aiken  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  69 

Iowa  31—87. 
Aiken  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  5 

S.  C.  358—88. 
Aikin  v.  Frankford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  142 

Pa.  St.  47—1646. 
Airey  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.,  50 

La.  Ann.  648 — 69. 
A.  J.  Tower  Co.  v.  Southern  Pac.  Co., 

195  Mass.   157—2023. 
Akerson  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  32  N.  J.  L. 

254—1723. 
Alabama  &  V.  R.  Co.  v.  Beardslev,  79 

Miss.  417—992. 
Alabama  &  V.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hayne,  76 

Miss.  538—361. 
Alabama  &  V.  R.  Co.  v.  Livingston, 

84  Miss.  1—966. 
Alabama  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brady, 

160  Ala.  615—614. 
Alabama  City,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Cox — 

629,   1000. 
Alabama  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sampley 

(Ala.),  53   So.   142—1172. 
Alabama  City  G.  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Ven- 

tress    (Ala.),  54  So.  652—1548. 
Alabama,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Arnold,   84 

Ala.   159—1236. 
Alabama,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  Arnold,   80 

Ala.  600—1704,  1723. 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beardsley,  79 

Miss.  417—1267. 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brichetto,  72 

Miss.  891—240,  363,  369. 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Grabfelder, 

83   Ala.  200—384. 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Guilford,  119 

Ga.  523—1114. 
Alabama,    etc..    R.    Co.   v.    Hawk.    72 

Ala.  112—1572,  1563,  1638. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


XXVil 


Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hill,  93  Ala. 

514—1215,   1501,   1554,   1723,  1724. 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kidd,  35  Ala. 

209—198,  204,  384,  405. 
Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Little,    71 

Ala.   611 — 454,   492,  570,   572,  576, 

1451. 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moorer,  116 

Ala.  642—549. 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mt.  Vernon 

Co.,  84  Ala.  173—84,  376,  743,  774. 
Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Pouncey 

(Ala.),  61  So.  601—1180. 
Alabama,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Purnell,   69 

Miss.   652—1722. 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sampley,  169 

Ala.  372—1175. 
Alabama,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Searles,   71 

Miss.  744—151,  585. 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Sparks,  71 

Miss.  757—819,  838. 
Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Stacy,    68 

Miss.  463—1125. 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  89 

Ala.  294—454,   728,   730,   743,  752, 

908. 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  83 

Ala.  343 — 454,  756,  766,  896. 
Alabama,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Yarbrough, 

83  Ala.  238—987,  1057. 
Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Arnold,   80 

Ala.  600—1704,  1723. 
Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Coggins,  88 

Fed.  455—959,  1605,  1690. 
Alabama  G.   S.   R.  Co.  v,  Eichoofer, 

100   Ala.  224—204. 
Alabama   G.    S.   R.   Co.   v.   Elliott   & 

Son,  150  Ala.  381—322. 
Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Frazier,  93 

Ala.  45—1562. 
Alabama   G.    S.    R.   Co.   v.    Gewin   & 

Son,  5  Ala.  App.  584—833. 
Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Gilbert  (Ala. 

App.),  60  So.  542—1540,  1652. 
Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Godfrey,  156 

Ala.  202—1236. 
Alabama   G.    S.   R.   Co.   v.   Hawk,   72 

Ala.  112—1503,  1572,  1638. 
Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Hill,  93  Ala. 

514—1215,  1554,  1723,  1724. 
Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  71  Ala. 

487—1107. 
Alabama   G.   S.   R.   Co.   v.   Little,   71 

Ala.   611—454,  492,  570,  572,  576, 

1451. 


Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  McCleskey, 

160   Ala.  630—511. 
Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Mt.  Vernon 

Co.,  84  Ala.  173—84,  376,  743,  774. 
Alabama   G.   S.   R.   Co.  v.   Quarles  & 

Conturie,   145  Ala.  436—309. 
Alabama   G.   S.   R.   Co.  v.   Seller,   93 

Ala.  9—1256,  1709,  1710,  1720,  1722. 
Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  89 

Ala.  294 — 454,  728,   730,   743,   752, 

908. 
Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  83 

Ala.  343—454,  756,  766,  896. 
Alabama  Midland  Ry.  Co.  v.   Darby, 

119  Ala.  531—280. 
Alabama  Midland  R.  Co.  v.  Guilford, 

119  Ga.  523—954,  1086,  1105,  1211. 
Alabama   Nat.   Bank  v.   Mobile,   etc., 

R.  Co.,  42  Mo.  App.  284—221. 
Alair    v.    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    53 

Minn.  160^94,  889. 
Albin   V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    103 

Mo.  App.  308—980,  1059. 
Albion  V.  Hetrick,  90  Ind.  545—1269. 
Albion  Lumber  Co.  v.  De  Nobra,  72 

Fed.  739—87,  944,   1500,  1065. 
Albrecht  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10 

Kv.  Law  Rep.  449—597. 
Albright  v.  Penn,  14  Tex.  290—59. 
Alcorn  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    108 

Mo.  81—410. 
Alden  v.   Carver,   13   Iowa   253 — 625, 

636. 
Alden  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  26 

N.  Y.  102—1106,  1114,  1117,  1505. 
Alden   v.    Pearson,    3    Gray    (Mass.) 

342—291,  570. 
Alderman  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  115  Mass. 

233—223,  227. 
Aldrich   v.   Boston,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    100 

Mass.  31 — 410,  411. 
Aldrich  v.  Southern  Rv.  Co.    (S.  C.) 

79  S.  E.  316—1814,  1891. 
Aldrick  v.  St.  Louis  Trans.  Co.    (Mo. 

App.),  74  S.  W.  141—1081. 
Aldridge  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  15 

C.  B.  N.  S.  582—9,  465,  768,  1464. 
Alexander  v.   Green,   7   Hill    (N.   Y.) 

533—19,  461,  462,  518. 
Alexander  v.  Green,  3  Hill   (N.  Y.)  9 

—14,  56. 
Alexander  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

83  Ky.  589—1131. 
Alexander  v.  New  Orleans  R.,  etc.  Co., 

129  La.  959—1175. 


IXVlll 


TABLE  OF  OASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Alexander  v.   Pejiiisvlvania    11.  Co.,  7 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  lS;i— 918. 
Alexander  v.  Toronto,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35 

U.  C.  Q.  B.  453—1454. 
Alexander  v.  Toronto,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33 

U.  C.  Q.  B.  474—1456. 
Alexandria  Bay   S.  Co.  v.  New  York 

Cent.,  etc.,  r'.  Co.,  18  App.  Div.  (N. 

Y.)   527-1128. 
Alexandria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  17 

Wall.    (U.   S.)    445—1143. 
Alexandria,   etc.,   R.  Co.  v.   Herndon, 

87  Va.  193—1125.  1557. 
Alford  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Int. 

Com.  Rep.  771—1825. 
Alford  V.   Home,  3   Stark.   136—463. 
A.  L.  Hasse  &  Sons  Fish  Co.  v.  Mer- 
chants'  Despatch   Transp.   Co.,    143 

Mo.  App.  42—328,  370,  424. 
Alkali  Co.  v.  Jackson,  L.  R.  7  Exch. 

267—73. 
Allam   V.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    183 

Pa.  104 — 205,  381,  399. 
Allam  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  3  Pa. 

Super.  Ct.  33.5—1475. 
Allan  V.  State  Steamship  Co.,  132  N. 

Y.  91—1133. 
Allday  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  5  B. 

&  S.  903-806. 
Allen  V.  Camden,  etc..  Ferry  Co.,  46 

N.  J.  L.  198—1711. 
Allen  V.  Cape  Fear,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   100 

N.  C.  397—163. 
Allen  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Neb. 

726 — 796. 
Allen  V.  Coltart,  11  Q.  B.  Div.  782— 

525. 
Allen   V.    Galveston    City    R.    Co.,    79 

Tex.  631—1237. 
Allen  V.  Lake  Shore  &  M.  S.  R.  Co., 

57  Ohio  St.  79—1146. 
Allen  V.  London  &  S.  W.  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  6  Q.  B.  65—1184. 
Allen    V.    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    35 

Wash.  221—1479. 
Allen  V.  Sackrider,  37  N.  Y.  341—1, 

4,  11,  13,  19,  21,  22,  72. 
Allen  V.  Sewall,  6  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  335 

—75. 
AUen  V.  Sewall,  2  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  327 

—29,   75,   108,   109,    163,   526,  957, 

1030. 
Allen  V.  Texas  *  P.  Ry.  Co.,  100  Tex. 

52.5—143.  148. 
Allen  V.   Willard,   57   Pa.   St.   374— 

1533. 


Allen  V.  Williams,  12  Pick,    (Maes.) 

297—227,   232. 
Allen  <fe  Le^vi8  v.  Oregon   R.   &   Nav. 

Co.,  98  Fed.  16—1786,  1828. 
Allender  v.   Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   4.S 

Iowa  276—1246,   1282,   1608. 
Allender  v.  Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   37 

Iowa  264—973,  985,  989. 
Allenza   v.    lOrie    R.    Co.,    138    N.    Y. 

Supp.   1024—1279. 
AUerton  v.   Boston,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   14(5 

Mass.  241—1012. 
AUgeyer  v.  Louisville,  165  U.  S.  57 ^ 

—1762. 
Ailing    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    12 (J 

Mass.  121—1298,  1299,  1.300,  1302. 
Allis  v.  Voight,  90  Mich.  125—12,  13. 
Allison    \-.    Chicago,    etc.,    K.    Co.,    42 

Iowa  274 — 1554. 
Allison  V.  Georgia,   etc.,  R.   Co.,    132 

Ga.  834—1390. 
Allison  V.  St.  Louis  &  H.  Ry.  Co.,  157 

Mo.  App.  370—1538. 
Allyn    V.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    lO.'i 

Mass.   77 — 1533. 
Almand   v.   Georgia   R.,   etc.,   Co.,   95 

Ga.  775—380,  413,  736. 
Aimer  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co.,   120  N. 

Y.   170—1080. 
Alsager  v.  St.  Katharine's  Dock  Co., 

14  M.  &  W.  794—644,  648. 
Alsop   v.   Southern   Express   Co.,    104 

N.   C.  278—118. 
Alston  V.  Herning,  11  Exch.  822 — 33. 
Alt  V.  State,  88  Neb.  259—94. 
Altemeier  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

4  Ohio  N.  P.  224—954. 
Althorf  V.  Wolfe,  22  N.  Y.  355 — 1728. 
Altwein  v.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co., 

86  Kan.  220—1547. 
Ambach  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 

Ohio  L.  J.  Ill — 495. 
Ambler  v.  Philadelphia  &  R.  R.  Co., 

39  Super.  Ct.  198—1022. 
American  Banana  Co.  v.  United  Fruit 

Co.,   160  Fed.   184—304. 
American   Contract   Co.   v.   Cross,   71 

Ky.    (8  Bush)   472—1294. 
American  Dist.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Walker,  72 

Md.  454—106,   110. 
American,  etc.,  Express  Co.  v.  Schier, 

55  111.  140—262,  263. 
American  Express  Co.  v.  Baldwin,  26 

111.   504—196.  234,   2.53. 
American  Express  Co.  v.  Burke  &  Mc- 

Guire,  61  So.  312—501. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


XXIX 


American  Express  Co.  v.  Greenhalge, 

80  IlL  68—264. 
American  Express  Co.  v.  Hockett,  30 

Ind.   250—39,   253. 
American  Express  Co.  v.  Haggard,  37 

111.  465—253. 
American  Express  Co.  v.  Kimball  4; 
Nutter    (N.  H.),  86  Atl,  258—666. 
American   Express   Co.  v.   Lesem,   39 

lU.  312—262,  263,  265. 
American    Express    Co.    v.    Ogles,    36 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  407—1037. 
American  Express  Co.  v.  Perkins,  42 

111.  458—35,  528. 
American   Express   Co.   v.   Sands,    55 

Pa.    St.    140 — 458,    495,    571. 
American  Express  Co.  y.  Second  Na- 
tional Bank,  69  Pa.  St.  394 — 430. 
American   Express   Co.   y.    Smith,   33 
Ohio    St.    511—37,    314,    336,    343, 
355,   359,   362,   529,  550,   1122. 
American  Express  Co.  v.  Spelhnan,  90 

111.   455 — 446,   455. 
American    Express    Co.    v.    Titusville 
Second  Nat.  Bank.  69  Pa.  St.  394— 
740,    767. 
American     Express     Co.     v.     United 

States,  212  U.  S.  522—1883. 
American   Hav   Co.   v.   Bath,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,  85  N.  Y.  Supp.  341— -472. 
American   Ins.   Co.   v.   Bryan,   1   Hill 

(N.  Y.)    25—519. 
American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Bryan,  26  Wend. 

(N.  Y.)   563—519. 
American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Pinckney,  29  111. 

392—39. 
American   Lead   Pencil    Co.   v.   Nash- 
ville, etc.,  Rv.,   124  Tenn.  57—171, 
320,  556. 
American  M.  U.  Express  Co.  v.  Milk, 

73  111.  224—208. 
American  M.  U.  Express  Co.  v.  Phil- 
lips, 29  Mich.  515—785,  809. 
American  M.  U.  Express  Co.  v.  Schier, 

55  111.   140 — 431. 
American  Merchants'  Union  Exp.  Co. 
V.  Wolf,  79  111.  430—253,  262,  263, 
264,  402. 
American   Nat.   Bank   v.   Georgia   R. 

Co.,  96  Ga.  665—218,  639. 
American  Rapid  Tel.  Co.  v.  Connecti- 
cut Teleph.  Co.,  49  Conn.  352—95. 
American  Silk  Dyeing  Co.  v.  Fuller'a 
Express  Co.,  82  N.  J.  Law,  654— 
607. 


American  Silver  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wabash 
R.  Co.    (Mo.  App.),  156  S.  W.  83C» 
—501. 
American    Standard    Jewelry    Co.    v. 

Witherington,  81  Ark.  134 — 254. 
American  Starch  Co.  v.  Bateman  (Civ. 

App.),  22  S.  W.  771—1857. 
American  Steamship  Co.  v.  Bryan,  83 

Pa.  St.  446 — 76. 
American  Steamship  Co.  v.  Landreth, 

102  Pa.  St.  131—1130. 
American  Sugar  Refining  Co.  v.  Dela- 
ware, etc.,  R.   Co.,  207   Fed.  733 — 
1818,   1835. 
American  Sugar  Refining  Co.  y.  Dela- 
ware, etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  200  Fed.  652 — 
1807,  1882. 
American  Sugar  Refining  Co.  v  .Mc- 

Ghee,  96  Ga.  27—235,  392,  402. 
American  Sugar  Refining  Co.  v.  Rick- 

inson,  124  Fed.  188—2002. 
American  Sugar  Refining  Co.  v.  Rick- 

inson,  120  Fed.  591 — 2002. 
American  Sugar  Refining  Co.  v.  The 
Sandfield,  79  Fed.  371—2000,  2015, 
2028. 
American  Tie  &  Timber  Co.  v.  Kan- 
sas Citv  Southern  Rv.  Co.,  175  Fed. 
28—1804,  1888. 
American    Transp.    Co.    v.    Moore,    5 

Mich.  368—427,  1454.  1455. 
American  Union  Coal  Co.  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.,   159   Fed.  278 — 1874 
1890. 
American   Union   Exp.   Co.   v.   Robin- 
son, 72  Pa.  St.  274—253. 
American   Union   Tel.   Co.   v.   Daugh- 

tery,  89  Ala.  191—91. 
American    Zinc,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Markle, 
Lead   Works,    102  Mo.   App.    158— 
232. 
Ames  V.  Belden,  17  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  515 

—13,  14. 
Ames   V.    Fargo,    114   App.    Div.    (N 

Y.)    666—172,  791,  933. 
Ames  V.  McCamber,   124  Mass.  85 — 

390. 
Ames  V.  Parmer,  42  Me.  197 — 633. 
Ames   V.    Southern    Pac.   R.    Co.     141 

CaL  728—1419. 
Ames    V.    Waterloo    &,    Cedar    Falls 
Rapid   Transit   Co.    (Iowa)    95   N. 
W.   161—1519.   1692. 
Amory   v.   McGregor,    15   Johns.    (N. 
Y.)   24—581,  587. 


XXX 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   reforeiu'os   are   to   the   pages.) 


Anacosta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  KUin,  S  App. 

D.  C.  75— 12;]S. 
Anchor  Line  v.   Dater,  68   111.   3G'.)— 

433,   743,  74!l. 
Anchor  Line  v.    Kimwles,   GO   111.    l.'SO 

— 133. 
Ajiclior   Mill   Co.   v.   Burlington,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  102  Iowa,  2()2— 241. 
Andalnian   v.   Cliicago   &   N.   W.   Ry. 

Co.,  153  111  App.  109—721. 
Ajiderson  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 

Mo.  App.  ()77— 903. 
Anderson  v.  IJrooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 

32  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   260—1494. 
Anderson  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  17 

Ont.   Rep.  747—1330,   1455. 
Anderson    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Neb.),  52  N.  W.  840—1544. 
Anderson  v.  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Ore. 

505—1103. 
Anderson  v.  Foresman,  Wright  (Ohio) 

598—5,  7,   11. 
Anderson  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  24 

Ont.  App.  672—1601. 
Anderson  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

(Ind.  App.),  59  N.  E.  396—896. 
Anderson  v.  Louisville  &  N.  Ry.  Co., 

134  Ky.  343—1390,  1393,  1396. 
Anderson   v.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.   Co. 

(Miss.),  15  So.  79.5—610. 
Anderson  v.  ^Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co., 

159  Mo.  App.  141—1669. 
Anderson    v.    Mobile    &    0.    R.    Co. 

(Miss.)    38   So.   661—177. 
Anderson  v.  North  Eastern  R.  Co.,  9 

W.  R.  519—583. 
Anderson  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  N. 

Y.  334—1564. 
Anderson  v.  Scholey,   114  Ind.  553 — 

1488. 
Anderson  v.  South  Carolina  &  G.  R. 

Co.,  77  S.  C.  434—1482. 
Anderson  v.  Union  Terminal  R.  Co., 

161  Mo.  411—548. 
Anderson  Art  Co.  v.  Greenburg,   118 

111  App.  220—102. 
Andrews  v.  Capital  Citv,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

2  Mackay    (D.  C.)    137—1646. 
Andrews  v.'  Dieterich,   14  Wend.    (N. 

Y.)    31—638. 
Andrews  v.  Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  25  S.  W.  1040— 

1298. 
Andrews  v.  Yazoo  &  ]\L  V.  V.  Co.,  80 

Miss.  129—1019. 


Andrews  Soap  Co.  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  3  Int.  Com.  Rep.  77—1787. 
Andrist  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  30  Fed. 

"4.'")— 1230. 
Andrus  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  Steamboat 

Co.,  47   W'asli.  333 — 638,    (O.^. 
Angle  V.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   18 

Iowa  555—207,  412,  570. 
Angle  V.   Mississippi,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   9 

Iowa,  487—207,  405,  744. 
Ann  Arbor  Ry.  Co.  v.  Amos,  85  Ohio 

St.  300—1398. 
Annas  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67 

Wis.    46—1031,    1451,    1460,    1463, 

1465. 
Anniston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ledbetter,  92 

Ala.  326—384,   394. 
Anniston    Mfg.    Co.   v.   Southern   Ry. 

Co.,  145  Ala.  351—726. 
Anniston     Transfer     Co.     v.     Gurley 

(Ala.),   18  So.  209—1348. 
Anon  V.  Jackson,   1   Ilayw.    (N.   C), 

14—11,  117.. 
Anon  V.  Jackson,  2  Peake  N.  P.   185 

—430. 
Anthonj'  Salt  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 

Co.,  4  Int.  Com.  Rep.  33—1786. 
Ansell  V.  Waterhouse,  18  E.  C.  L.  227 

—948. 
Ansell  V.  Waterhouse,  1  Chit.  1 — 30. 
A.  P.  Brantley  Co.  v.  Ocean  S.  S.  Co., 

5  Ga.  App.  844—1890. 
A.  P.  Loveman  &  Co.  v.  Alabama,  etc., 

R.  Co.   (Ala.),  57  So.  817—173. 
Appleby    v.    South    Carolina,    etc.    R. 

Co.,  60  S.  C.  48—1720. 
Appleby  v.   St.  Paul  City  R.  Co.,  54 

Minn.   169-1417. 
Arayo  v.  Currel,  1  La.  528—951. 
Archer  v.  Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87 

Mich.  101-1640",  1643. 
Archer  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106 

N.  Y.  589—1541. 
Archer  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  110  Mo. 

App.  349—981. 
Arctic    Fire    Ins.    Co.    v.    Austin,    54 

Barb.   (N.  Y.)   559—56. 
Arkadelphia    Milling    Co.   v.    Smoker 

Merchandise  Co.,   100  Ark.  37—72, 

169,  242,  319. 
Arkansas  &  L.   Rv.   Co.   v.   Sain,   90 

Ark.  278-1254,^1281,  1539. 
Arkansas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Bennett,  82 

Ark.  393—959,  1005. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


XXXI 


Arkansas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Janson,  90 

Ark.    494— 10S5,    1105. 
Arkansas   M.   R.   Co.   v.   Canman,   52 

Ark.  517—1069,  1107,  1211. 
Arkansas  M.  R.  Co.  v.  Griffith,  63  Ark. 

491—1056,    1085. 
Arkansas  M.  R.  Co.  v.  Rambo,  90  Ark. 

108—1503. 
Arkansas  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Murphy, 

83  Ark.  562 — 422. 
Arlington  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

6  Jones  L.  (N.  C.)  68—234. 
Armentrout  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

1  Mo.  App.  158—372. 
Armistead  v.  Shreveport,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

108  La.  171—610. 
Armistead  v.  Wilde,  17  Q.  B.  261—6. 
Armistead  Lumber  Co.  v.  Louisville, 

etc.,   R.   Co.    (Miss.)    11   So.   472— 

203. 
Armour  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  65 

N.  Y.  111—218,  228,  448. 
Armour  Packing  Co.  v.  United  States, 

209    U.    S.    56—1911,    1932,    1943, 

1945,  1950,  1961,  1974.  1978. 
Armour  Packing  Co.  v.  United  States, 

153  Fed.  1—1815,  1839,  1885,  1941, 

1942,  1945,  1951,  1958,  1961. 
Armsby  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  4  Fed. 

706—624. 
Armstrong  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 

Minn.  183-481,  483. 
Armstrong   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

45  Minn.  85—385,  410,  798. 
Armstrong  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62 

Mo.   App.   639—569,   637. 
Armstrong  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  18 

New   Bruns.    445 — 761. 
Armstrong  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 

23    App.    Div.    (N.   Y.)     137,    1487, 

1500. 
Armstrong  v.   Missouri    Pac.   R.   Co., 

17  Mo.  App.  403—598,  616. 
Armstrong   v.   New   York   Cent.,   etc., 

R.  Co.,  66  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  437—1598. 
Armstrong   v.    Portland   Ry.    Co.,    52 

Ore.  437—1684. 
Armstrong  v.  United   States  Express 

Co.,  159  Pa.  St.  640—346,  457,  794, 

896. 
Arnold   v.   Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   81 

Kan.    400—1400,    1700. 
Arnold   v.    llalenbake,   5    Wend.    (N. 

Y.)   33—53. 


Arnold  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  83  lU. 

273—1145,  1423,   1450,  1456. 
Arnold    v.    Jones,    26    Tex.    335 — 29, 

458. 
Arnold  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.   Co.,  4 

Ga.  App.  519—883,  890. 
Arnold   v.   Pennsylvania   R.   Co.,    115 

Pa.  St.   135-988,  999. 
Arnold  v.  Rhode  Island  Co.,  28  R.  I. 

118—1400. 
Arnold  v.  Shade,  3  Phila.   (Pa.)   82— 

737,  755. 
Arrington  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  70  S.  W.  551—1107. 
Arrowsmith  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

57   Fed.   165—1049. 
Arthur   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    61 

Iowa,  648—267. 
Arthur  v.   Pullman  Co.,   44  Misc.   R. 

(N.   Y.)    229—65, 
Arthur  v.  Schooner  Cassius,  2  Story 

(U.  S.)   97—259,  649,  650. 
Arthur  v.   St.   Paul,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   38 

Minn.  95—245,  385,  394. 
Arthur  v.  Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.,  204  U. 

S.  505—180,  443. 
Asbell   v.    Kansas,    209   U.    S.   251— 

1894. 
Ash  v.  Putnam,  1  Hill  (N.  Y.)  302— 

644. 
Ashbrook   v.    Frederick    Ave.   R.    Co., 

18  Mo.  App.  290—1626,  1640,  1643. 
Asheboro    Wheelbarrow    Mfg.    Co.    v. 

Southern  R.  Co.,   149   N.  C.   261— 

622. 
Ashenden  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

W.  R.  511—46.5. 
Asher  v.  East  St.  Louis  &  S.  Ry.  Co., 

140  111.  App.  220—1480. 
Ashmole  v.  Wainwright,  2  Q.  B.  837 

—105. 
Ashmore  v.  Pennsylvania  Steam  Tow- 
ing, etc.,  Co.,  28  N.  J.  L.  180—54, 

57,  75,  419,   1331,   1402. 
Askew  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)   73  S.  W.  486—768,  1369. 
Associated  Wholesale  Grocers  v.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.,  1  Int.  Com.  Rep. 

393—1792,  1854. 
Aston  v.  Heaven,  2  Esp.  533 — 24. 
Aston  v.  St.  Louis  Tr.  Co.  (Mo.  App.), 

79  S.  W.  999.  1108,  1486. 
Atciiison  V.   Ciiicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 

Mo.  213—794. 


XXXll 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 

(The   references   are   to   flic   pa^'oa.) 


Ak'hison.    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    AJleii,    "5 

Kan.   190—798,  799,   1277. 
Atchison,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Baldwin.  53 

Colo.  416—882,  883. 
Atchison,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.  v.  Bell,  31  Okl. 

238—1884. 
Atchison,   etc..   R.    Co.   v.   Brewer,   20 

Kan.  6G9— 1302.   1345,   1368. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bourdett,  74 

Kan.  137—362. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brvan    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  28  S.  W.  98-^343,  469, 

485. 
Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Coffin,    13 

Ariz.   144—883. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crittenden,  4 

Kan.  App.  512 — 487. 
Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Davis,    34 

Kan.  109,  209—744,  780. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Denver,  etc., 

R.    Co.,    110   U.    S.    667—122,   728, 

729,  1787,  1822,  1823,  1829,  1895. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Derrick,  78 

Kan.  884—1055. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dickenson,  4 

Kan.  App.  345—1394,  1395. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dill,  48  Kan. 

210—430,  432,  438,  493,  880. 
Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Ditmars,   3 

Kan.  App.  459 — 485,  819,  838. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elder,  149  111. 

173—1104. 
Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Elder,    57 

Kan.  312—1475,  1500. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fletcher,  35 

Kan.   236—754. 
Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Flynn,    24 

Kan.  627—1122,  1252. 
Atchison,    etc.,    R.   Co.    v.    Gants,    38 

Kan.    608—989,    999,    1069,    1070, 

1227,  1228,  1431,  1437. 
Atchison,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Goetz  &  Brada 

Mfg.  Co.,  51  111.  App.  151—1959. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grant,  6  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  674—346,  458,  4S2,  779. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Headland,  18 

Colo.  447—958,  959,  1021,  1058. 
Atchison,    etc.,    R.   Co.   v.    Henrv,    78 

Kan.  490—311,  321. 
Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Henry,   55 

Kan.  715—1148,  1166,   1182. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hinssell,  76 

Kan.  74—648. 
Atchison,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Holloway,  71 

Kan.  1—974. 


Atchison,  etc..  Ry.  Co.  v.  Holmes,  18 

Okl.  92—1885. 
Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Hughes,   55 

Kan.  491—1243. 
Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Interstate 

Commerce  Commission   (U.  S.  Com. 

Ct.),  190  Fed.  581—1872. 
Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Interstate 

Commerce    Commission,     188    Fed. 

229—255,   1844. 
Atchison,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.  v.   Interstate 

Commerce    Commission,     182    Fed. 

189—1881. 
Atchison,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Johns,    36 

Kan.  769—1060. 
Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Johnson,   3 

Okla.  41—1059. 
Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Lawler,   40 

Neb.  356—346,  457,  582. 
Atchison,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Lindley,   42 

Kan.  714—1286. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lucas   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  144  S.  W.   1126—1417. 
Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Mason,    4 

Kan.  App.  391—873. 
Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Miller,    16 

Neb.  661 — 427.  586. 
Atchison,    etc.,    R.   Co.   v.    Moore,    29 

Kan.  632—449. 
Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Morris,   65 

Kan.  532 — 481. 
Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Go.    v.    Parry,    67 

Kan.  515—1272. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  227 

111.  270—14.3,  148. 
Atchison,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Poole,    73 

Kan.  466—883. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reesraan,  60 

Fed.  370—1104. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richardson, 

53  Kan.  157—766. 
Atchison,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    Roach,    35 

Kan.    740—744,    754,    1360,    1361, 

1363. 
Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Roberts,   3 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  370—268. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rodgers,  16 

N.  M.  120—508,  875. 
Atchison,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Robinson 

(Okl.),  129  Pac.  20—883. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schriver,  72 

Kan.  550—282,  293. 
Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Shean,    18 

Colo.  368—1013,  1211,  1690. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are  to  the   pages.) 


XXXlll 


Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith  (Okl.), 

132  Pac.  494—1472. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smvthe  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  119  S.  W.  892—508. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Superior  Re- 
fining Co.,  83  Kan.  732—1879. 
Atchison,   etc.,  R.   Co.   v.   Temple,   47 

Kan.  7—484,  487,  881. 
Atchison,    etc..     R.     Co.    v.     Thomas 

(Kan.),  78  Pac.  861—615,  623. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

203  Fed.  56—1842. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

191  Fed.  856—1831,   1832. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

178  Fed.  12—811,  812,  1984. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

170    Fed.    250—1932,     1950,    1969, 

1970. 
Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Washburn, 

5  Neb.  117— il9,  1458,  1461. 
Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.    Weber,   33 

Kan.  543—1247,   1248,   1258,   1272, 

1273,  1403,  1592. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Witkinson,  55 

Kan.  83—1371. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  77  S.  W.  964—1407. 
Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Wright,   78 

Kan.  94—884,  900. 
Atkeson  v.  Jackson  Estate    (Wash.), 

130  Pac.  102—102. 
Atkinson  v.  New  York  Transfer  Co., 

76  N.  J.  Law,  608—508,  1915. 
Atkinson   v.   Ritchie,    10   East   534 — 

145,  333. 
Atkisson  v.  Steamboat  Castle  Garden, 

28  Mo.   124—272. 
Atlanta   &   W.   P.   R.    Co.   v.   Jacobs' 

Pharmacy  Co.,   135  Ga.   113—562. 
Atlanta  Consol.  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Bates, 

103  Ga.  333—997. 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dickerson,  89 

Ga.  455—1675. 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fuller,  92  Ga. 

482—987. 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Haralson,  133 

Ga.  231—1153. 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holcombe,  88 

Ga.  9—116,  1232. 
Atlanta,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Texas  Grate 

Co.,  81  Ga.  602—345,  .')96,  758. 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wyly,  65  Ga. 

120—1511. 


Atlanta  Nat.  Bank  v.  Southern  Ry. 
Co.,   103  Fed.   623—764. 

Atlanta  Terminal  Co.  v.  American 
Baggage  &  Transfer  Co.,  125  Ga. 
677—1352. 

Atlantic  &  B.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Howard  Sup- 
ply Co.,  125  Ga.  478—192. 

Atlantic  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Laird,  15  U. 
S.  App.  248—41. 

Atlantic  City  v.  Brown,  71  N.  J.  Law 
81—61. 

Atlantic  City  R.  Co.  v.  Clegg,  183 
Fed.  216—978,   1603. 

Atlantic  Citv  R.  Co.  v.  Goodin,  62  N. 
J.  L.  394—1609,  1690. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Coach- 
man, 59  Fla.   130 — 894,  933. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Crosby, 
53  Fla.  400—1532,  1654. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Dexter, 
50  Fla.  180—894. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Dothen 
Mule  Co.,   161  Ala.  341—875. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Geraty, 
166  Fed.   10—135. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Good- 
win, 1  Ga.  App.  ,351 — 277. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Hinely- 
Stephens  Co.,  64  Fla.  175—834,  872, 
900,  910. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Macon 
Grocery  Co.,  166  Fed.  206—1873. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Pipkin, 
64  Fla.  24 — 1540. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Rice, 
169  Ala.  265 — 116,  129,  854. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Rice,  29 
Mich.  515—785. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v.  River- 
side Mills,  219  U.  S.  186—1902, 
1909,  1911,  1912,  1920,  1922,  1923, 
1924,   1925,    1928. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Whar- 
ton, 207  U.  S.  328—1894. 

Atlantic  Compress  Co.  v.  Central  of 
Ga.  Ry.  Co.,  135  Ga.  140—475. 

Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson,  118 
Ga.  288—1607. 

Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Condor,  75 
Ga.   51—1721,   1729. 

Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunn,  19  Ohio 
St.   162—1149,   1726. 

Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Howard  Sup- 
ply Co.,  125  Ga.  478—590. 


XXX IV 


TABLE  Oi-'  CAISES, 
(The   refi'iinccs   are   to   the   pages.) 


Atlantic,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Tanner,   C8 

Ua.  .^84— ;{!)0.  4-! 9. 
Atlantic,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  'I'exas  Crate 

Co.,  81  Ca.  602—345,  5!)li,  758. 
Atlantic  Ins.  Co.  v.  titorrow,  5  Paige 

(N.  Y.)    285—519. 
Atlas   S.   S.   Co.   V.   Colonibiau   Land 

Co.,  102  Fed.  358—630,  672. 
Aton  Piano  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ky. 

Co.,  152  Wis.  156—1778. 
Atwater  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43 

N.  J.  L.  55— 9!)S,   113U. 
Atwell  V.  Miller,   11  Md.  348—661. 
Atwood  V.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  25 

Misc.  R.   (N.  Y.)    758—1092. 
Atwood  V.  Mohler,  108  IlL  App.  416 

—1291. 
Atwood    V.    Reliance    Transp.    Co.,    9 

Watts     (Pa.)     89—458,    518,    1453, 

1460. 
Auerbach  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  89  N.  Y.  281—1015,  1028,  1411. 
Augusta,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  McElraurry, 

24  Ga.  75—1510. 
Augusta,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Randall,   85 

Ga.  297—1553. 
Augusta,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Randall,  79 

Ga.  304—1559,  1706,  1732. 
Augusta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Renz,  55  Ga. 

126—1557,    1039. 
Ausrusta    R.    Co.    v.    Glover,    4    Am. 

ElectL  Cas.  433—1106. 
Augusta  Rv.  &  Elec.  Co.  v.  Smith,  3 

St.  Ry.  Rep.  75,  121  Ga.  29—1072. 
Augusta   Southern   R.   Co.  v.   Snider, 

118  Ga.  146—1639. 
Augusta  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Wrishts- 

ville,    etc.,   R.   Co.,    74    Fed.    522— 

1824. 
Augustus   V.    Chicago,    etc.,    Ry.    Co., 

153  Mo.  App.  572—1497. 
Aull   V.   Missouri    Pac.   Ry.    Co.,    136 

Mo.  App.  291-884. 
Ault    V.    Cowan,    20    Pa.    Super.    Ct. 

616—1479. 
Aultman  Engine  Thresher  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  143  Iowa  561— 

606. 
Aurora,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Reich    (111.), 

90  N.  E.  924 — 993. 
Austin  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

2  Q.  B.  442—1031,  1137. 
Austin  V.  "Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10 

C.  B.  454—6. 


AusMn   V.   St.   Louis  &  S.   F.   R.  Co., 

149  Mo.  App.  397—960,  1005,  1578. 
Austin  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Packet  Co., 

15   Mo.  App.   1!)7— 51. 
Austin-Electric  Rv.  Co.  v.  Lane  (Tex, 

Civ.  App.),   120  S.  W.   1011—1669. 
Austin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Slator,  7  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  344—149. 
Austin-Stephenson    Co.    v.    Southern 

Ry.  Co.,  151  N.  C.  137—883. 
Avery   v.   Galveston,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   81 

Tex.   243—1590. 
Averj'  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

121  N.  Y.  31—1068,  1070. 
Avery  v.  Stewart,  2  Conn.  74 — 266. 
Avinger  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  29 

S.  C.  265—42,  44,  117,  161,  610. 
Ayer  v.   Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  79 

Me.  493—91. 
Ayers  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Wis. 

372—144. 
Ay] ward  v.  Smith,  2  Lowell   (U.  S.), 

192—350. 
Aymar  v.  Astor,  6  Cow.   (N.  Y.),  266 

—76. 
Ayres  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Wis. 

215—605,  607,  838. 
Ayres  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Wis. 

372—149,  793. 
Ayres  v.  Rochester  R.  Co.,  156  N.  Y. 

104—1124,  1506. 
Ayres  v.  Western  R.  Corp..  14  Blatchf. 

(U.  S.)  9—426,  519,  775. 

B. 

Babcock  v.  Herbert,  3  Ala.  392 — 20, 

59. 
Babcock  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,   R.  Co., 

49   N.   Y.   491—222,   738,   753,   762, 

770,  771,  1361. 
Bacharach   v.    Chester    Freight   Line, 

133   Pa.  St.  414—261,  630. 
Bachman  v.  Clyde  S.  S.  Co.,  152  Fed. 

403—1341. 
Bachman  v.  Union  Rv.  Co.  of  N.  Y. 

City,    111   N.  Y.   Supp.   586—1652. 
Backhaus  v.  Chicas^o,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92 

Wis.  393-385,  394. 
Bacon  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  155 

111.    App.   40—346,   596. 
Bacon  v.   Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   143 

Pa.  St.  14—1613. 
Bacon  V.  Pullman  Co.,   159   Fed.   1 — 

1371. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


XXXV 


(The  references  are   to  the   pages.) 


Badley  v.   Columbia  Southern  R.   Co. 

(Or.),  75  Pac.  212—1627. 
Bageard    v.    Consolidated    Tract    Co., 

64  N.  J.  Law  316—1272. 
Bagg  V.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109 

Is.  C.  279—353. 
Bags  of  Linseed,  1  Black  (U.  S.)   lOS 

—645. 
Bailey  v.  Citizens  R.  Co.,  152  Mo.  449 

—1510. 
Bailey  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  49  N. 

Y.  70—213. 
Bailey  v.  Quint,  22  Vt.  474—042. 
Bailey  v.   Shaw,  24  X.  H.  297—529, 

598. 
Bailey  v.  Tacoma  Tract.  Co.,  16  Wash. 

48—1039. 
Baily  v.  Damon,  3  Gray    (Mass.),  92 

—634, 
Baily  v.  De  Crespigny,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B. 

186 — 145. 
Bainbridge   v.  Union  Tract.   Co.,  206 

Pa.  St.  71—1645. 
Bainbridge    Grocery    Co.    v.    Atlantic 

Coast  Line  R.  Co.,  8  Ga.  App.  677 

—171,  179. 
Baird  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  132  N.  Y.  Supp. 

329—725. 
Baird   v.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   41 

Ftxl.  591— 209,  270. 
Bairley  v.  Gladstone,  3  M.  &  S.  205— 

629. 
Bajus  V.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   103 

N.  Y.  312—1105. 
Baker  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.  Co.,  74  N. 

H.  100—42,  149,  1277,  1471. 
Baker  v.  Brinson,  9  Rich.  L.   (S.  C.) 

201—577. 
Baker  v.   Brooklyn  Union  E.  R.  Co., 

130  N.  Y.  Supp.  690— ll(i9 
Baker  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  11.  Co.,  91 

Mo.    152—146,   534. 
Baker  v.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    10 

I>3a    (Tenn.)    304—155,   7^5 
Baker   v.   Maher,    Howell    (Mich.    N. 

P.),  39—39. 
Baker  v.   Manhattan   R.   Co.,   118  N. 

Y.  53.3— 1G33. 
Baker    v.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    34 

Mo.  App.  98 — 1458. 
Baker  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.,  145 

Mo.   App.   189—788,  899. 
Bakor   v.   St.   Ix>uis   &   S.   F.   R.  Co., 
(Mo.  App.),  129  S.  W.  436—366. 


Baker  &  Penniston  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.    (Minn.),  97  N.  W.  OoJ— 536. 
Baldraff   v.    Camden,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   2 

Fed.  Cas.  507—1330. 
Baldwin  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  23  111. 

197—39,   202,   253,   743. 
Baldwin  v.  Collins,  9  Rob.   (La.)   468 

—427,  455,  527. 
Baldwin  v.   Grand  Trunk  R.   Co.,   64 

X.  H.  596—1429. 
Baldwin    v.    Grand    Trunk    Ry.,    128 

Mich.  417—966. 
Baldwin  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  81 

Minn.  247 — 371. 
Baldwin    v.    Liverpool,    etc..    Steam- 
ship  Co.,  74  N.  Y.   125—522,   525, 

527,  712. 
Baldwin  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Q. 

B.  Div.  582—555,  594,  606. 
Baldwin  v.  People's  Ry.  Co.,  7  Penn. 

(Del.)    81—1131. 
Baldwin  v.  United  States  Tel.  Co.,  45 

X.  Y.  744—89,  92. 
Baldwin  Sheep  &  Land  Co.  v.  Colum- 
bia Southern  Ry.  Co.,  58  Or.  285— 

725,  1779,  1885. 
Ball  V.  Xew  Jersey  Steamboat  Co.,  1 

Daly   (N.  Y.),  491—179. 
Ball  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Mo. 

574 — 457,   837,   896,  904,    1458. 
Ballentin©  v.  North  Missouri,  40  Mo. 

491-136,   312,   355,   365,   606,   788, 

838. 
Ballou   V.   Earle,    17   R.   L   441 — 430, 

432,  494,  1459. 
Ballou  V.   Farnum,  9  Allen    (Mass.), 

47—46,  48. 
Baltimore   &   C.   R.   Co.   v.   Hill,    104 

:\Id.  295—602. 
Baltimore  &  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Barger,  80 

Md.  23—1171. 
Baltimore  &  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Dever,  112 

IMd.  296—825. 
Baltimore   &   O.    R.    Co.    v.    Diamond 

Coal  Co.,  61   Ohio  St.  242—711. 
Baltimore  &   0.   R.    Co.   v.   Duke    38 

App.  D.   C.   164—1470. 
Baltimore    &    O.    R.    Co.    v.     Fisher 
(Com.    PI.),    3    Oliio   N.    P.    122— 

695. 
Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co.  v.  Grav's  Ferry 
Abattoir    Co.,    27    Pa.    Super.    Ct. 
511— G02.  695. 
Baltimore  &  0.  R   Co.  v.  Griffith,  159 
U.  S.  60.3—1517. 


iXWl 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


(Tlie  reicieucca  arc   to   the   pages.) 


Baltimore  &i  O.  R.  Co.  v.  llaiiibuig.  r, 

lo5  Fed.  841) — 1840. 
lialtimore   &,  O.    R.   Co.   v.   llubbai'd, 

25  Ohio  C.  C.  477—586. 
Jialtimore  &  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Kaue  (Md.), 

13  AU.  387—11)15. 
Baltimore  &  O.  R.  Co.  v.  La  Due,  128 

App.  Div.  5'Ji,  108  N.  Y.  Supp.  659 

— 681,  1846,  1847,  1879,  1882,  1886. 
Baltimore  k  0.  R.  Co.  v.  Leapley,  65 

Md.  571—1272. 
Baltimore  &  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Oriental  Oil 

Co.    (Tex.    Civ.   App.),    HI    S.    W. 

979—508. 
Baltimore  &  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Samuel,  48 

Pa.   Super.  Ct.  274—694. 
Baltimore   6c.   O.   R.   Co.   v.   State,    72 

Md.  36—1049. 
Baltimore  &,   O.   R.    Co.   v.   State,   60 

Md.   449—961,    1007. 
Baltimore  &   O.   R.   Co.   v.   Thornton, 

188  Fed.  868 — 1416. 
Baltimore     &     O.    R.    Co.    v.     United 

StaU>s,  200   Fed.   779—1818. 
Baltimore    &,    0.    R.     Co.    v.    United 

States,    165    Fed.    113—1818. 
Baltimore  &   O.   R.   Co.  v.  Whitehill, 

104   Md.   295—789,   840,    864. 
Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkens,  44 

Md.  11—229. 
Baltimore  &,  O.  S.  W.  Ry.  Co.  v.  New 

Albany  Box  &  B.  Co.,  48  Ind.  App. 

647 — 683. 
Baltimore  City  Pass.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Baer, 

90  Md.  97—1238. 
Baltimore  City  Pass.  R.  Co.  v.  Kemp, 

61  Md.  74 — 1706,  1718. 
Baltimore   City   Pass.   R.   Co.   v.   Mc- 
Donnell, 43  Md.  534 — 1588,  1589. 
Baltimore     City     Pass.     R.     Co.     v. 

Nugent,  86  Md.  349 — 1215. 
Baltimore  City  Pass.  R.   Co.  v.  Wil- 
kinson, 30  Md.  224 — 1071. 
Baltimore,      etc..      Express      Co.      v. 

C\>oper,  66  Miss.   558 — 484. 
Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    I'.anibrey 

fPa.),   16  Atl.   67—1417,    1418. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barger,  80 

Md.  23,  30—949,   1170. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blocher,  27 

Md.  277—1071,  1148,  1175,  1725. 
Baltimore,  etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Brady,   32 

Md.  333—427,  432,  456,  578,  1450, 

1453,   1456,   1458,   1460. 
Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Breinig,  25 
Md.  378—946,  1212,  1681. 


Baltimore,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Campbell, 

36   Oiiio   St.   647—744,    1333,    1361, 

1452,  M58. 
Baltimore,  elc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Oarr.  71  Md. 

135—1069,    1071,    1702,    1707.    1708, 

1719,   1727. 
Baltimore,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Caaoii,   72 

Md.    377—1489. 
Baltimore,   etc.,   R.   Co.   y.   Clift,    142 

Ky.  573—792,  822. 
Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Cox,    66 

Uiiio  St.  276—548. 
Bal'timore,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Davis,   44 

Ind.   App.   375 — 1177. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis  (Pa.), 

12  Atl.  335—328, 
Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Diamond 

Coal  Co.,  61  Ohio  St.  242 — 160. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Evans,  169 

Ind.   410—1421. 
Baltimore,    etc.,   R.    C^.   v.    Fox,    113 

111.  App.  180—785,  873,  904. 
Baltimore,   etc.,   R    Co.   v.   Green,   25 

Md.   72—256,  385,  755. 
Baltimore,    etc.,   R.    Co.    v.   Hubbard, 

25    Oliio    Cir.    Ot.    Rep.    477 — 882, 

887,  894,  896. 
Baltimore,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v.   Kane,   69 

Md.   11—1243,   1552,   1614. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kane  (Md.), 

17  Atl.  1032—1229. 
Baltimore,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Keedy,   75 

Md.  320—338. 
Baltimore,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Klift,   142 

Ky.  573—911. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Leapley,  65 

Md.  571—1243,  1673. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCkrney, 

12  Ohio  C.  C.  543—1054. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Go.  v.  McDonald, 

68  Ind.  316 — 1407. 
Baltimore,   etc.,   R.  'Co.   v.   McLauah- 

lin,  73  Fed.  519—1457. 
Baltimore,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  Morehead, 

5  W.  Va.  293—338. 
Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    New    Al- 
bany  Box,  etc.,   Co.,   48   Ind.   App 

647—669,  1836,  1885. 
Baltimore,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Noell,   32 

Gratt      (Va.),      394^1082,      1301 

1504. 
Baltimore,   etc.,  R.   Oo.  v.  Norris    17 

Ind.  App.  189 — 1426. 
Baltimore.  ot<c..  R.  Cb.  v.  Nu^'ent    86 

Md.  349—548.  "       ' 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Donnell, 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


XXJtVll 


(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


49  Ohio  St.  4S9— 277,  278,  287,  325, 

329,  333,  342,  344,  604,  611. 
Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Pennsyl- 
vania R.    Co.,    18   Am.   &   Eng.   R. 

Gas.  511—124. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pixley,  61 

Ind.  22—1256. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.   Oo.  v.  Piimphrey, 

59    Md.    390—235,    344,    582,    615, 

616 
Baltimore,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Ragsdale, 

14  Ind.  App.  406—455,  481.  493. 
Baltimore,  etc.,   P»^.   Co.  v.  Rambo,   16 

U.   S.  App.  277—944. 
Baltimore,   etc.,   R.   Cio.   v.   Rathbone, 

1  W.  Va.  87—430,  459. 
Baltimore,   etc.,   R.   Oo.  v.   Ross,    ICo 

111.  App.  54—463,  881. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Samuel,  48 

Pa.  Super,  €t.  274—672. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schumacher, 

29  Md.   108,    176—410.   730. 
Baltimore,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    Skeels,    3 

W.  Va.   556—459,   1460. 
Baltimore,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   State,   63 

Md.  135—989,  1212,  1477,  1504. 
Baltimore,   et*..   R.   Co.   v.   State,    60 

Md.  449—1016. 
Baltimore,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    State,    29 

Md.  252—1115. 
Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.   Swann,  81 

Md.  400—1475. 
Baltimore,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Tison,   110 

111.  App.  48—789. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Voight,  176 

U.  S.  498—1053,  1465. 
Baltimore,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Whitacre, 

.35  Ohio  St.  627—1544,  1546. 
Baltimore,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Whitting- 

ton,   30  Gratt    (Va.),   809—1544. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wightman, 

29   Gmtt    (Va.^    431—1501.    1504, 

1513. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkens,  44 

Md.   11—781. 
Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Oo.    v.    William 

Spf-rber  &   Co.,    117   Md.  595—297, 

1905. 
Baltimore,  ete.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood  &  Co., 

130  Ky.  839—917. 
Baltimore,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Worthintr- 

ton,  21  Md.  275—1083,   ].'>01. 
Baltimore,    etc.,    Steamboat     Co.     v. 

Brown,  54  Pa.  St.  77—740,  755. 
Bfiltimore.     etc..    Turnpike    Road    v. 

Boone,  45  Md.  344—1711. 


Baltimore,    etc..    Turnpike    Rood    v. 

CB.son,  72  Md.  377—1477. 
Baltimore,    etc.,    Turnpike    Road    v, 

Leonhardt,  66  Md.  70—1101,  1212, 

1572,  1598. 
Baltimore,  Railway  Oo.  v.  Bennett,  50 

Fed.   496—1415. 
Baltimore  Sti  am  Packet  Co.  v.  Smith, 

23  Md.  402—1293,   1363,   1377. 
Baltimore  Tract.  Co.  y.  State,  Ring- 
gold, 78  Md.  409—1018,  1249. 
Bamberg  v.  International  Ry.  Oo.,  53 

Misc.   R.    (N.  Y.)    403—1497. 
Bamberg   t.    South    Carolina   R.    Oo., 

9  S.  O.  61—33,  591,  822. 
Bamberger   v.    Schoolfield,    100   U.  S. 

149—1735. 
Bancroft  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.,  97 

Mass.  275—1607,   1689. 
Bancroft      v.      Merchants'      Despatch 

Transp.  Co.,  47  Iowa,  262—53,  772, 

775. 
Bank   v.    Ohamplain   Transp.   Oo.,   23 

Vt.   186—109. 
Bank   v.   Champlain   Transp.    Co.,    16 

Vt.  52—207. 
Bank    v.    CJiicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    153 

App.  Div.  469—802. 
Bankard   v.    Baltimore,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

34  Md.   197—456,  576,  907. 
Bank   of  Batavia  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  106  N.  Y.  195—218,  228. 
Bank    of    Columbia    v.    Lawrence      1 

Pet.    (U.  S.)    578—85. 
Bank  of  Commerce  v.  Bissell,   72  N. 

Y.   615—220. 
Bank    of    Kentucky    v.    Adams    J^xp. 

Co.,  93  U.  S.   (3  Otto)    174 — 39.  40, 

41,  418,  1912. 
Bank  of   Orange  v.   Brown,   3   Wend. 

(N.  Y.)    158,  161—19,  1030. 
Bank  of  Oswego  v.  Doyle,   91   N.   Y. 

42—414. 
Bank  of  Rochester  v.  Jones,  4  N.  Y. 

497-213,  232,  233. 
Banner  Grain  Co.  v.  Great  Northern 

Ry.  Co.,  119  Minn.  68—705. 
Bansemer  v.  Toledo,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  25 

Ind.  434—26,  2.k">,  257.  381,  413. 
Barasch  v.  Richards,  113  N.  Y.  Supp. 

100.5—82. 
Barber  v.  Broadway,  etc.,   R.  Co.,   10 

Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.)    109 — 1020. 
Barber  v.   Broadway,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   9 

Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)    20—1560. 


XXXV  111 


TABLE  Oi<"  CASEy. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Barber  v.   Chicngo,  etc.,   Ry.   Co.,   86 

Kiui.  277 — 14 to. 
Barber   v.    Collin,    31    Barb.    (N.   Y.) 

55l>— 1014,    lUi!5. 
Barber  v.  Meyerstein  L.  R.,  4  H.  L. 

317—221. 
Barbour  v.  Soutb  Eastern  R.  Co.,  34 

L.  T.  N.  S.  U7— 555. 
Barclay  v.  CurvuUa  of  Gana,  3  Doug. 

369—324. 
Barclay    v.    Southern    Ry.    Co.     (Ala. 

App.),  60   So.  479— 2U0,  384. 
Bard   V.   Penns\lvania  Tract.   Co.,   7G 

P'a.  St.  97—1616. 
Bardtn    v.    Bos  ion,    etc.,   R.   Co.,    121 

iiass.   426—1631,    1633. 
Barden  &   Swarthout  v.   Lehigh  Val- 
ley R.  Co.,  12  I.  C.  C.  Rep.   193— 

1S6S. 
Bardwell   v.   Mobile,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   C3 

Miss.   574—1577,   16S0. 
Bare    v.    Amer.can    Forwarding    Co., 

146  111.  App.  338— S2,  762. 
Barker  v.  C^utral  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

151  N.  Y.  237—1273. 
Baiker  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  243 

Id.   482—1276. 
Barker  v.   Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   149 

111.  App.  520—1049,   1497. 
Barker  v.  Dinsmore,  72  Pa.  St.  427— 

210. 
Barker  v.  Havens,  17  Johns   (N.  Y.), 

243—625. 
Barker  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24 

N.   Y.  599—1243. 
Barker  v.   Oliio  River  R.  Co.,  51   W. 

Va.  423—1602. 
BarksduU  v.  New  Orleans  &  C.  R.  Cb., 

23   La.  Am.   180-1591. 
Barlick  v.  Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co.,  41 

Pa.   Super.  Ct.  87—1536. 
Barnard   v.   Kobbe,   54   N.   Y.    516— 

328. 
Barnard  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

60  Md.  555—1476. 
Barnes  v.   Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,   167 

Mo.  App.  62—1377. 
Barnes  v.  Danville  St.  Rv.,  etc.,  Co., 

235    111.   506—1480.    1497,    1573. 
Barnes  v.  Marshall,  83  E.  C.  L.  785— 

132,   133. 
Barnett  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  H. 

&  N.  604—453. 
Barnev    v.    RTirnstenhindor,    64    Barb. 

(N.  Y.)    212—563,  564. 


Harney  v.   Oyster  Bay   S.  B.   Co.,   67 

N.   Y.  301—1127,  1136,   1142,   1409. 
Barney  v.  Prentiss,  4  liar.  &  J.  317 — 

420,  1452. 
Bainham  v.  Grand  Trunk  Ry.  Co.,  63 

Me.  298—1444. 
Barre  v.  Railway  Co.,  155  Pa.  170— 

1590. 
Barrett  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  87 

E.  C.  L.  423—150. 
Barrott  v.   Indianapolis,  etc.,   R.  Co., 

9  iMo.  App.  226—779. 
Barrett  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  45  N. 

Y.   628 — 1211,    1269. 
Barrett  v.  Salter,  10  Rob,   (La.)   434 

—170. 
Barron  v.  Eldredge,  100  Mass.  455 — 

83,  84,  172,  376,  380. 
Barron  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  1  Biss. 

(U.  S.)   453—1263. 
Barron  v.  Mobile  &  0.  R.  Co.,  2  Ala. 

App.  555—223. 
Barrott  v.   Pullman  Palace  Car   Co., 

51   Fed.  790—63,  65,   66. 
Barry    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Ct).,    172 

Mass.  109—1672. 
Barry  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  51  App. 

Div.    (N.  Y.)    385—1184. 
Barry    v.    Union    Ry.    Co.,    105    App. 

Div.    (N.  Y.)    520—1010,  1020. 
Barry  v.   Union  Tract.   Co.,    194   Pa. 

St.  576—1221. 
Bartelt    v.    Oregon    R.,    etc.,    Co.,  57 

Wash.  16—787,  937. 
Barter   v.   Wheelar,   49  N.   H.   9 — 46, 

47,  48,  180,  181,  377,  451,  457,  746, 

778,  779,  13G0,  1450. 
Earth   v.    Houghton    Co.    St.    R.    Co. 

(Mich.),  93  N.  W.  620,  9  Det.  Leg. 

News,  595—1489. 
Barth   v.   Kansas   Citv   Elev.   R.   Co., 

142   Mb.   535—975,  "1238. 
Bartholomew  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc., 

R.  Co.,   102  N.  Y.  716—1633. 
Bartholomew    v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,     53     111.    227—198,     199,     259, 

1353. 
Bartle  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

121    App.   Div.   72—1671. 
Bartlett  v.  Carnley,  6  Duer.   (N.  Y.) 

194—634. 
Bartlett    v.    New    York,    etc..    Ferry, 

etc.,  Co.,   130  N.  Y.  659—1627. 
Bartlett  v.   New   York,    etc.,    Transp. 

Co.,  57  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  348—113;], 

1495,  1627. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages. 


XXXIX 


Bartlett    v.    New    York,    etc.,    Ferry, 

etc.,  Co.,  8   X.  Y.   Supp.   3U9— 990. 
Bartlett   v.    Ortgon    K.,    etc.,    Co.,    57 

Wash,  16—875. 
Bartlett   v.   Pittsburgh,    etc.,   R.    Co., 

94  Ind.  281—326,  3U9,  419,   493. 
Bartlett  v.  The  Philadelphia,  32  Mo. 

256—251. 
Bartlett  t.   Western   Union   Tel.   Co., 

62  Me.  209—88,  91. 
Eartley  v.  Georgia  R.  Co.,  60  Ga.  182 

—1114. 
Bartley   v.   Metropolitan    St.   R.    Co., 

148  Mo.   124—1222,   1223,   1489. 
Bartram   v.   McKee,    1    Watts    (Pa.), 

39—163. 
Basnight  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill 

N.    C.   592—83,   84,    171,   376,   399, 

411. 
Bass  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Wis. 

654 — 1563,    1724,   1725. 
Bass  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Wis. 

636—1149. 
Bass  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Wis. 

450—1069,   1070,   1071,   1149,   1266, 

1410. 
Bass  V.  Cleveland  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,   142 

Mich.  177—997,  1009. 
Baas  V.  Concord  St.  R.  Co.    (X.  H.), 

46  Atl.   1056—1125. 
Bass  V.  Glover,  63  Ga.  745—219,  274. 
Bassett  v.  Connecticut  River  R.  Co., 

145   Mass.    129—380,   415. 
Bassett  v.  Los  Angeles  Tr.  Co.  (Cal.), 

65  Pac.  470— 1488,  1489. 
Bassf-tt  &,  Stone  v.  Aberdeen  Coal  & 

Mining  Co.   (Ky.),  88  S.  \Y.  318— 

57. 
Bastard    v.    Bastard,    2    Show.    81 — 

132. 
Bates   V.  Oliicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    140 

Wis.  235—1547. 
Bates    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    60 

Wis.  298—332. 
Bates    V.    Old    Colony    R.    Co.,     147 

Mass.  255 — 1450,   1465. 
Bates  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  2  Int. 

Com.  Rep.  715—1786.  1704. 
Bates  V.  F'.anton,  1  Duer   (N.  Y.),  79 

—209,  328,  532. 
Betes  V.  W'eir,  105  N.  Y.  Supp.  785 — 

510. 
Bates  V.  White,    13   St.   R.    (N.  Y.) 

602— CC2. 
Batson  v.  Donovan,  4  B.  &  Aid.  27 — 

132,  523,  527. 


Battle  V.  Atkinson,  9  Ga.  App.  488 — 

680. 
Battle   V.    Columbia,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   70 

S.  C.  329—1294,  1295,  1349. 
Batten    V.    South,    etc.,    Alaoama    R. 

Co.,  77  Ala.  591—1193. 
Baugh  V.  McDcUiiel,  42  Ga.  641—755. 
Baughman  v.   Louisville  etc.,  R.   Co., 

94  Ky.   150—494. 
Bauld  v.  Smith,  40  Nova  Scotia,  294 

—599. 
Baum    V.    Long    Island    R.    Co.,    58 

Misc.     (N.    Y.)    34 — 252,    255,    474, 

1335. 
Baum  V.  New  York  &  Q.  C.  Ry.  Co., 

124  A.pp.  Div.   (N.  Y.)    12—1492. 
Baumann  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

35  Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.)   223—601. 
Baumbach   v.    Gulf,    etc.,    Ry.    Co.,    4 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  650^260,  608,  663, 

693. 
Baunj^tn.in  v.  New  York  C.  R.  Co.,  56 

Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.)    498—1173,   1185. 
Bausemer   v.   Toledo   &   W.   Ry.    Co., 

25  Ind.  434 — 251. 
Baxendale  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103 

E.  C.  L.  787—158. 
Baxendale    v.    Eastern     Counties     R. 

Co.,  93  E.  C.  L.  78—162. 
Baxendale   v.   Great   Eastern   R.   Co., 

10  B.  &  S.  212—435,  465. 
Baxendale  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.   10  Exch.  35—745. 
Baxley     v.    Tallass?e,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

(Ala.),  29   So.   451—146. 
Baxter  v.   Dominion  Tel.   Co.,   37   U. 

C.  Q.  B.  470—88. 
Baxter  v.   L;:land,   1   Abb.   Adm.    (U. 

S.)    348—553. 
Baxter  v.  Tx)uisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  165 

111.  78—021. 
Bay  V.  Cortland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  App. 

Div.    (N.  Y.)    530—1703. 
Bavles  v.  Diamond  St.  Omnibus  Co., 

173  Pa.  St.  378-1563. 
Bavles    v.    Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    13 

Colo.   181—160,  181,  678. 
Bavlpv  V.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

L.  T.  N.  S.  366—1150,   1181. 
Bazin  v.  Steamship   Co.,  3   Wall.  Jr. 

(C.  C.)    229—588. 
Beach    v.    Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co.,    1 

Manitoba,    158 — 728. 
Beacli  V.  Parmcter,  23  Pa.  St.   197— 

1122. 


TABLE  0¥  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


B^'ach  V.  Raritan,  etc.,   U.  Co.,  37  N. 

Y.   468—53. 
Btacham  v.  Vorthsmoiith  Bridge    (N. 

H.),  40  Atl.  1066— IfiOO. 
Beal   V.  Soutii  Devon  R.  Co.,  3  H.  & 

C.  341—337,  464. 
Bean  v.  Green.   12  Me.  422—1338. 
Bean  v.  Sturtemnt.  8  N.  H.  146—38, 

63,    186. 
Beard  v.  Conn.  4,  Pass.  R.  Co.,  48  Vt. 

101—1126. 
Beard  v.  Illinois  C.  R.  Co.,  79  Iowa, 

518—152,  749,  777. 
Beard   v.   Si.   Louis,   ete.,   R.   Co.,   79 

Iowa,  527—152,  743. 
Beardslee    v.    Richardson,    11    Wend. 

(X.  Y.)   25—5,  10,  532. 
Beardsley  v.  Minneapolis   St.  R.  Co., 

54  Minn.  504—1563. 
Beasley  v.  Baltimore  &  P.  R.  Co.,  27 

App.  D.   C.  595—249,  282,  640. 
BeaUi  V.  Rapid  R.  Co.,  119  Mich.  512 

—1560. 
Beattie  v.  Boston  Elev.   Ry.  Co.,  201 

Mass.  3-1528. 
Beattv    V.    Central    Iowa   R.    Co.,    58 

Iowa,  242—313. 
Beatty    v.    [Metropolitan    West    Side 
Elev.    R.    Co.,    141    111.    App.    92— 
1522. 
Beauchanip   v.   International,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,  56  Tex.  239—1227. 
Eeaulien  v.   Great  Northern  Ry.  Co., 

103  Minn.  47—1385. 
Beaumont   v.    Canadian   Pac.   R.   Co., 
5  Montreal  L.  R.  Superior  Ct.  255 
—768. 
Beaumont  v.  Philadelphia  &  Rv.  Co., 

38   Pa.  Super.   Ct.  224—205. 
Beaumont     Traction     Co.     v.     Happ 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  122  S.  W.  610— 
968,   1579. 
Beaver   v.    Grand   Trunk   R.    Co.,    20 

Ont.  App.  476—999. 
Beaver   v.   Pittsburg,   etc..    R.   Co.,    3 

Int.   Com.   Rep.   564—1787. 
Beck  V.  Evans,  16  East,  244—13,  34, 

464. 
Bexik  V.  Quincv,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  Mo. 

App.  7—1399,   1429,   1435. 
Becker   v.   Great  Eastern   R.   Co.,   L, 

R.  5  Q.  B.  241—1298.  1375. 
Becker  v.  Hallgarten,  86  N.  Y.  167 — 
199,  232. 


Becker   v.   Lincoln   Real   Estate,   etc., 

Co.,   174  Mo.  246—103. 
Backer   v.    Pennsylvania    K.    Co.,    109 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)   230—408,  558. 
Becker  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  11 

Neb.   87-92. 
Beckford  v.  Crutwell,  5  C.  &  P.  242 

—464. 
Becknian   v.   Shouse,   5   Rawle    (Pa.), 
179—12,     62,     63,     426,     428,     4.J8, 
1451,  1453,  1460. 
Beckwith    v.    Cheshire    R.    Co.,     143 

Mass.  68^ — 1391. 
Beckwith  v.  Frisbie,  32  Vt.  559—54, 

368,  373,  712. 
Beddle    v.    Oity    Elec.     R.     Ck).,     112 

Mich.   547—1560. 
Bedell  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  94 

Ga.  22—351. 
Bedford   Bowling-Green   Stone  Co.   v. 

Oman,  115  Ky.  369—710. 
Bedford   Bowling-Green   Stone  Co.,  v. 
Oman,  24  Ky.  Law  Rep.  2274—116. 
Bedford   Bowling-Green    Stone   Co.   v. 

Oman.   134  Fed.  441—184. 
Bedford,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  IXainbolt,  99 

Ind.   551—1082,    1478,    1501. 
Beebj  v.  Ayres,  28  Barb.   (N.  Y.)   275 

—1014,  'l016.    1070,    1411. 
Beebe  v.  .lohnson,  19  Wend.   (N.  Y.) 

500—349. 
Beecher   v.   Long  Island   R.   Co.,    161 

N.  Y.  222—1609. 
Beekman  v.   Saratoga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   3 

Paige    (N.   Y.),   45—1136. 
Beekman    v.    Southern    Pac.    Co.,    39 

Utah,  472—814. 
Beers  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Conn.), 

34  Atl.  541—1301. 
Beers    v.    Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    34 

Fed.  244—122,  733. 
Beeson    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    62 

Iowa,  173 — 1138. 
Behrens    v.    The    Furnessia,    35    Fed. 

798—1261. 
Beidler   v.   Branahaw,   200   HI.   425 — 

1626.  16.59. 
Beisiegel   v.  New  York  Cent.   R.   Co., 

40  N.  Y.  9—1728. 
Belcher   v.    Missouri,    etc..    R.    Co.    of 

Texas,   92   Tex.    593—558. 
Belden    v.    Pullman    Palace    Car    CJo. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  43  S.  W.  22—64. 
Belfa.st,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keys,  9,  H.  L. 
Oa.3.  .556—543,    1300. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


xli 


Belger  v.  Dinsmore,  51  N.  Y.  166 — 38, 

430,  528. 
Bell  V.  Central  Elec.  Ry.  Co.,  125  Mo. 

App.  660 — 1525. 
Bell  V.  Dominion  Tel.  Co.,  25  L.  C.  J. 

(Can.)   248—90. 
Bell  V.   Drew.   4  E.   D.   Sm.    (X.   Y.) 

59—1300. 
Bell  V.  Incorporated  Town  of  Clarion, 

113  Iowa,   126—1519. 
Bell  V.   Mobile   Light   &   R.   Co.,    146 

Ala.  309 — 996. 
Bell  V.  Reed,  4  Binn   (Pa.),  127—75, 

574. 
Bell  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Mo. 

App.  363—391. 
Bell  V.  Windsor,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Nova 

Scotia,  521—344. 
Belle   City  Mfg.   Co.  v.   Frizzell,    149 

Fed.  486—1738. 
Bellefontaine  R.  Co.  v.  Schneider,  24 

Ohio  St.  670—1520. 
Bellman  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co..    42    Hun    (X.    Y.)     130—1012, 

1286,    1673. 
Bellows  V.   Wabash   R.   Co.,    118   Mo. 

App.  500—886. 
Belton  Oil  Co.  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  Rv.   Co. 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  92  S.   W.  411— 

668. 
Belt  Ry.  Co.  v.  Banicki,  102  111.  App. 

642—549,  1460. 
Belt  Rv.  of  Chicago  v.  United  States, 

168   Fed.  542—1956. 
Benbow  v.  North  Carolina  R.  Co.,  61 

N.  C.   (Phil.  L.)   421—238,  241. 
Benedict  v.  Minneapols  &  St.  P.  R. 

Co.,  86  Minn.  224—1642. 
Benjamin  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 

245  Mo.  598—976,  981. 
Benner  v.  Equitable  Safetv  Ins.   Co., 

88  Mass.   (6  Allen)   222—653. 
Benner  Livery  &  U.  Co.  v.  Busson,  58 

111.  App.  17—1030. 
Bennett  v.  American  Express  Co.,  83 

Me.   236—330,   333,   570.    1758. 
Bennett  v.   Byram,   38   Miss.   20 — 27, 

243,  367. 
Bennett  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   151 

Mo.   App.   29.3-597,  865,   'Y.W.   940. 
Bennett  v.  Drew,  3  Bosw.   (N.  Y.)  355 

— «14. 
Bpnnett   v.   Dutton,    10    X.    H.    481— 

427,  945,  948,  113ii.   1137,  1213. 


Bennett  v.  Filyaw,  1  Fla.  451,  453— 

20,  75. 
Bennett   v.   Lycoming,    etc.,    Ins.   Co., 

07  N.  Y.  278—391. 
Bennett   v.   Manchester,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

95  E.  C.  L.  707—150. 
Bennett  v.  New  Jersey  R.,  etc.,   Co., 

36  X.  J.  L.  225—1269. 
Bennett  v.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 

Conn.    422—1601. 
Bennett  v.  Xorthern  Pac.  Express  Co., 

12  Ore.  49—212,  483. 
Bennett    v.    Peninsular,    etc..    Steam- 
boat Co.,  6  C.  B.  785—944. 
Bennett    v.    Railroad    Co.,    7    Phila. 

(Pa.)    11—999. 
Bennett   v.   United    States,    194    Fed. 

630—1857. 
Bennett  v.  Virginia  Transfer  Co.,  140 

X.  Y.  Supp.   1055 — 473. 
Bennitt  v.  Missouri  Pac.   R.   Co.,   46 

Mo.  App.  656—774,  775,  776. 
Benson  v.  Baltimore  Traction  Co.,  77 

Md.   535—958. 
Benson  v.  Gray,  154  Mass.  691 — 848. 
Benson  v.  New  Jersey  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  9 

Bosw.    (N.  Y.)    412—1259,   1705. 
Benson  v.  Oregon  Short  Line  R.  Co., 

99  Pac.   1072    (Utah,   1909)— 72. 
Benson   v.    Tacoma    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    51 

Wash.  216—1196,   1271. 
Benson  v.  Wilmington  City  Ry.  Co., 

1  Boyce  (24  Del.),  202—1520,  1669. 
Berg  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Kan. 

561 — 744,   766. 
Bergan  v.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.,  82 

Conn.  574—968. 
Bergeman   v.   Indiana,    etc.,   Ry.,    104 

Mo.  86 — 1563. 
Bergen  County  Tract.   Co.  v.  Demar- 

est,  62  N.  J.  L.  755—1500. 
Bergin  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  150  S.  W.  'll84 — 1807. 
Bergner  v.   Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   13 

Mo.  App.  499—381. 
Berje  v.   Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   37   La. 

Ann.   468—26,   119,  295,  342. 
Berkelliamer    v.    Johne,    113    N.    Y. 

Supp.  921—1421. 
Bermel  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  172 

N.  Y.  639—498,  505,  518. 
Bermel  v.  New  York,  etc..  R.  Co.,  62 

App.    Div.    389—505.   510. 
Bernard  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  205  Mass. 

254,  259—1914,  1916. 


xlii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   roforences  are   to   the   pages.) 


Bernhardt  v.  Carolina  &  F.  W.  R.  Co., 

135  N.   C.  258— 7 IG. 
Bernstein  v.  Weir,  40  Misc.  Rep.   (N. 

Y.)   C35 — 400.  545. 
Berry  v.  Carolina,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,   155 

N.   C.  2S7— 140S. 
Berrv  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  S. 

D.*  611—508,  795,  867,  879,  897. 
Berrv    v.    Cooper,    28    Ga.    543—576, 

1458. 
Berry    v.    Metropolitan    St.    Ry.    Co., 

156  Mo.  App.  560—1523. 
Berrv  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  122  N.  C. 

1002-170,  174. 
Berry  v.  Utica  Belt  L.  S.  R.  Co.,  76 

App.   Div.    (N.   Y.),   490—1615. 
Berry  v.  Utica,  etc.,  St.  Ry.  Co.,  181 

N.  Y'.  198—1008. 
Berry  v.  West  Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

44  W.  Va.  538—386,  391,  392. 
Berry   Coal   &   Coke   Co.   v.   Chicago, 

etc.,  Rv.  Co.,  116  Mo.  App.  214— 

626,  640,  687. 
Berthel  v.  Mellor  &  Rittenhouse  Co., 

131    Fed.   129—2024. 
Bertram    v.    McKee,    1    Watts    (Pa.) 

39—650. 
Besheer  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  151 

Mo.  App.  80—892. 
Bethea  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  26  S. 

C.  96 — 445. 
Bethman  v.   Old  Colony   R.   Co.,   155 

Mass.   352—1667. 
Bettis   V.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    131 

Iowa,  46—1426. 
Betts    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    150 

Iowa,  252—891. 
Betts    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    92 

Iowa,  343—793. 
Betts  V.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  21  Wis. 

SO— 459,  804,  873,  928. 
Bevis   V.    Baltimore,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   26 

Mo.  App.  19—64,  68. 
B.  F.  Schwartz  &  Co.  v.  Erie  R.  Co., 

32  Ky.  Law  Rep.  777—337. 
Bibb  Broom  Corn  Co.  v.  Atchison,  etc., 

Ry.  Co.,  94  Minn.  269—323,  349. 
Bibl'in  v.  McMullen,  2  P.  C.  317—410. 
Bickford    v.    Metropolitan    Steamship 

Co..  109  Mass.  151 — 405. 
Biddle  V.  Bond,  6  B.  &  S.  224—209, 

530,  533. 
Bigolow  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104 

Wis.   109—146,   153,  540. 


Bigolow   V.   lleaton,   4   Den.    (N.   Y.) 

496—642,  644. 
Bigelow    V.    Maine    Central    R.    Co. 

(Me.),  85   Atl.  396—69. 
Biggus   V.   New   York   Cent.,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,   141  N.  Y.  Supp.  827—1606. 
Bigiiold    V.    Waterhouse,    1    M.    &    S. 

255—463. 
Big  Sandy  &  C.  R.  Co.  v.  Blankenship, 

133   Ky.   438—1587. 
BigwoodV.  Boston  &  N.  St.  Ry.  Co., 

209  Mass.  345—1528. 
Bilsjer  v.   Dinsmore,  51  N.  Y.   166 — 

497,   524. 
Bills  V.  New  York  Cent,   R.   Co.,   84 

N.  Y.  5—816. 
Bingemann  v.  International  Ry.  Co., 

131  N.  Y.  Supp.  4—1072. 
Bingham  v.  Lamping,  26  Pa.  St.  340 

—206. 
Bingham  v.  Rogers,  6  W.  &  S.   (Pa.) 

495—428,  430,  458,  1453,  1460. 
Bingham  v.   San  Pedro,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

39  Utah,  400—893. 
Binns  v.  Pigot,  9  C.  &  P.  208—649. 
Bird  V.  Cromwell,   1  Mo.  81,  13  Am. 

Dec.  470—33,  336. 
Bird  V.  Georgia  R.  Co.,  72  Ga.  655— 

223,  271,  638,  639,  651,  753. 
Bird   V.    Great   Northern   R.    Co.,    28 

L.   J.   Exch.   3—1501. 
Birkett  v.  Western  Union  Telegraph 

Co.,  103  Mich.  361—93. 
Birkett  v.  Willan,  2  B.  &  Aid.  356— 

456,   464. 
Birmingham   v.   Rochester   City,   etc., 

R.  Co.,  137  N.  Y.  13—1082,   1118, 

1120. 
Birmingham  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

59  Hun   (N.  Y.)   583—1120,  1121. 
Birmingham  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Norris,  4 

Ala.  App.  363—976. 
Birmingham  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ander- 
son, 163  Ala.  72—1685. 
Birmingham   Ry.,   etc.,  Co.  v.  Ander- 
son  (Ala.  App.),  57  So.  103—1136. 
Birmingham   Ry.,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Baird, 

130  Ala.  350—1170. 
BirmJngham   Ry.,   etc.,   Co.  v.   Baird, 

130   Ala.   334—1150. 
Birmingham  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Barrett, 

(Ala.),  60  So.  262—1669. 
Birmingham  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bynum, 

139  Ala.  389—975,  1211. 


I 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


xliii 


(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


Birmingham   Ry.,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Glenn 

(Ala.),  60  So.  111—1179. 
Birmingham  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Grant,  2 

Ala.  App.  552—1374. 
Birmingliam  Ky.,   etc.,  Co.  v.  James, 

121   Ala.    120—1221,   1640. 
Birmingham    Ry.,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Jung 

(Ala.),  140  So.  434 — 1158. 
Birmingham    Ry.,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Lan- 

drum,  153  Ala.  192—1695. 
Birmingham  Rv.,  etc.,  Co.  v,  Lee,  153 

Ala.  79—1400. 
Birmingham   Ry.,   etc.,   Co.  v.  IMason 

(Ala.),  34  So.  270—1150,  1175. 
Birmingham    Ry.,    etc.,    Co.   v.   Mayo 

(Ala.),  61   So.  289—1525. 
Birmingham    Ry.,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Mc- 

Curdy,    172   Ala.   488—1537. 
Birmingham  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McDon- 

ough,    153   Ala.    122—1075,   1411. 
Birmingham   Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Moore, 

148   A.la.  115—1496. 
Birmingham  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mullen, 

138   Ala.   614—1170,    1171,   1392. 
Birmingham   Ry.,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Nolan 

(Ala.),  32  So.  715—1721. 
Birmingham  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Parker, 

161   Ala.   248—1177. 
Birmingham  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sawyer, 

156  Ala.   199—1062,   1484. 
Birmingham  Rv.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Seaborn, 

168  Ala.  658—1004. 
Birmingliam,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  90 

Ala.  60—1237. 
Birmingham  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stalling, 

154  Ala.  527—1075,   1411. 
Birmingham  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Turner, 

1.54  Ala.  542—1546. 

Birmingham  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Weld- 
man,   119   Ala.  547—1239. 

Birmingham  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wise, 
149  Ala.  492—979. 

Birmingham   Ry.,   etc.,   Co.   v.  Yates, 

169  Ala.  381—1660. 
Birmingham  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Yielding, 

155  Ala.  359—1.396,  1433. 
Birmingham  Union  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hale, 

90  Ala.  8—1560. 
Birney  v.  New  York  and  Washington 

Tel.  Co.,  18  Md.  341—88,  92. 
Birney  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  INIo. 

App.  470-585. 
Bischoff   V.   Schultz,   5   N.   Y.   Super. 

Ct.  757—1534. 


Bishell  V.  Huntington,  2  N.  H.  142— 

531. 
Bishop  V.   St.   Paul  City  R.  Co.,  48 

Minn.  26—1114. 
Bishop  V.  Williamson,   11   Me.  495 — 

85. 
Bissel   V.   Campbell,   54  N.  Y.   353— 

272. 
Bissell  V.  Michigan  Southern,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  22  N.  Y.  259,  307—778,  973. 
Bissell  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  25 
N.  Y.  442—31,  460,  468,  1030,  1119, 

1120,  1331,  1449,  1451,  1455,   1461, 

1462,  1467. 
Bissell  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  29 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    602—1460. 
Bissel  V.  Price,  16  111.  408—638,  782. 
Black   V.    Ashley,    80   Mich.    90—385, 

520,  767,  1990. 
Black  V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

82  S.  C.  478—515,  1338,  1374,  1385. 
Plack  V.  Brooklyn   City   R.   Co.,   108 
'   N.  Y.  640—1238. 
Black  V.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Bark. 

(N.  Y.)   40—587,  592. 
Black   V.    Carrollton   R.    Co.,    10   La. 

Ann.  33—1270. 
Black  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Neb. 

197_312,  815,  822,  838. 
Black    V.    Goodrich    Transp.    Co.,    55 

Wis.  319—463,  495,  571,  1460. 
Black  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.,  193  Mass. 

448—1569. 
Black  V.   Third  Ave.  R.   Co.,  3   App. 

Div.   (N.  Y.)   629—1488. 
Black  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  111. 

351—418,  433,  480,  880. 
Blackburn  v.  Chicago,  R.  I.  &  G.  Ry. 

Co.,  52  Tex.  Civ.  App.  443—539. 
Blackman  v.  West  Jersey  &  S.  R.  Co. 

(N.  J.),  .52  Atl.  370—1563. 
Blackmer  &  Post  Pipe  Co.  v.  Mobile 

&  0.  R.  Co..   137  Mo.  App.  479— 

290,  444,   1902. 
Blackmore  v.   Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co., 

162  Mo.  455—1352. 
Blackmore  v.  Toronto  St.  R.  Co.,  38 

U.  C.  Q.  B.  172—958,  1019. 
Blackstock  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

20  N.  Y.  48—36.  136,  326,  365,  369. 
Blac'kwell  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 

137  Mo.  App.  654—1093. 
Blackwell  v.  O'Gorraan,  22  R.  I.  638 

—102,  IGIO. 


xliv 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 

(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


Blackwell   Milling  &   Elevator   Co.   v. 

Western   Union   Telejiraph   Co.,    17 

Okl.  376—03. 
Blaiu   V.    Canadian    Pae.    Ry.    Co.,    5 

Ont.  Law.  Rep.  334— 11!H. 
Blair  v.  Erie  K.  Co.,  66  N.  Y.  313— 

462,    1052,    1449,    1454,    1461,    1463, 

1465. 
Blair  v.  Lewiston,  etc.,  St.  Ry.   (Me.), 

85   Atl.   792—1653. 
Blair  v.   Milwaukee,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  20 

Wis.  254—1104. 
Blair   v.   Philadclpliia   Rapid   T.   Co., 

36  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  319—946,  954. 
Blair   &   Jackson   v.   Wells,    Fargo   & 

Co.    (Iowa),   135   N.   W.   615—795, 

853,  893,  911,   1838. 
Blaisdell  v.  Connecticut  River  R.  Co., 

145  Mass.  132—380,  415. 
Blaisdell  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,   136 

N.  Y.  Supp.  768—1174,  1550. 
Blake  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   78 

Iowa,  57 — 1571. 
Blake  v.  Nicholson.  3  M.  &  S.  168— 

16. 
Blakely   v.   Le   Due,    19   Minn.    187 — 

169,  945. 
Blakemore  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

1  F.  &  F.  76—345. 
Blakiston  v.  Davies,  Turner  &  Co.,  42 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  390—22. 
Blanchard  v.  Isaacs,  3  Barb.   (N.  Y.) 

388—19,  63,  172,  186. 
Blanchard  v.   Page,  8   Gray    (Mass.), 

285—214,  670. 
Blanchard  v.  Windsor,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10 

Nova  Scotia,  8—1727. 
Blanchett  v.  Holyoke  St.  Ry.  Co.,  175 

Mass.  51—1267. 
Bland  v.  Adams  Express  Co..  1  Duv. 

(Ky.)    232—26,  324. 
Bland  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  65  Cal. 

626—1440. 
Bland  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  55  Cal. 

570—1398,   1443. 
Bland  v.  Womack,  2  Murph.    (N.  C.) 

373—5,  10. 
Blank   v.    Illinois    Cent.   R.    Co.,    182 

111.   332—1464,   1465. 
Blank  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  80  111. 

App.  475 — 1055. 
Blankenship  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

160  Mo.  App.  631—286,  892. 
Blanz    V.    Boston    &    A.    R.    Co.,    157 

Mass.  377—1434. 


Blatcher  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

31  App.  D.  C.  385—897,  912. 
Bleecker  v.  Colorado  &  S.  Ry.  Co.,  50 

Colo.  140—1176. 
Bleiwise  v.  Pennsylvania  R.   Co.    (N. 

J.)    78  A.  1058—1110. 
Blew    V.    Philadelphia    Rap.    Transit 

Co.,  227  Pa.  319—1499. 
Blin  v.  Mavo,  10  Vt.  56 — 199,  258. 
Blitch  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  76  Ga.  333 

—1226,  1637. 
Blitz    v.    Union    Steamboat    Co.,    51 

Mich.  558—1.34,  339. 
Bliven  v.  Ilud.son  River  R.  Co.,  36  N. 

Y.  403—37,   328,  329,  333,   340. 
Block  v.  Bannerman,  10  La.  Ann.  1 — 

1148,  1166,  1175,  1259. 
Block  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  139  Mass. 

308—767,  778,  779. 
Block  V.  Harlem,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  St. 

Rep.   (N.  Y.)   495—1587. 
Block    v.    Milwaukee    St.    R.    Co.,    89 

Wis.  371—1560. 
Blocker  v.  Whittenburg,   12  La.  Ann. 

410—36. 
Blodgett  V.  Abbot,  72  Wis.  516—354, 

744. 
Blodgett    v.    Bartlett,    50    Ga.    353— 

1244. 
Blomsness  v.  Puget  Sound  Elec.  Ry.. 

47  Wash.  620—963,  1007,  1149. 
Bloom  V.  Sioux  City  Traction  Co.,  148 

Iowa,  452—1569. 
Bloomenthall  v.  Brainerd,  38  Vt.  402 

—27,   46,   385,   392,    394,   427,   430. 

459,  584,  599,   1529. 
Bloomingdale    v.    Memphis,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  6  Lea   (Tenn.)    618—234. 
Blossom  V.  Dodd,  43  N.  Y.  264—30, 

426,  433,  447,   1333.   1451. 
Blossom  V.  Griffin,  13  N.  Y.  (3  Kern) 

569—81,  83,   170,  377,  761. 
Blower   v.   Great   Western   R.   Co.,   L. 

R.  7  C.  P.  655—793. 
Blum  V.  Monahan,  36  Misc.  Rep.    (N. 

Y.)    179 — 498,  569. 
Blum    V.    Southern    Pullman    Palace 

Car  Co.,   1   Flip.    (U.   S.)    .500—63, 

65,   1304. 
Blumantle   v.    Fitclihurg   R.   Co.,    127 

Mass.   322—1300,    1.301. 
Blumenthal  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co..  79 

Me.  550—1300,  1301. 
Blythe  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Colo. 

33.3—313. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


xlv 


Board   of   Trade   v.    Chicago,    etc.,   R. 

Co.,  3  Int.  Com.  Rep.  233—1786. 
Board  of  Trade  Bldg.  Corp.  v.  Cralle, 

109  Va.  246—1165. 
Boards    of    Trade    Union    v.    Chicago, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Int.  Com.  Rep.  608— 

1794. 
Boatmen's  Savings  Bank  v.  Western, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Ga.  221—227. 
Boaz  V.   Central   R.   Co.,   87   Ga.   463, 

289,  607,  815. 
Bobbink  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  82  N.  J.  L. 

547—196,  414,  422. 
Boden  v.  Boston  Elevated  R.  Co.,  205 

Mass.  504—964. 
Bodenham  v.   Bennett,  4   Price,   31 — 

197,  235,  464. 
Boehl    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co..    44 

Minn.  191—4.56,  494,  570,  822,  906, 

1458. 
Boehm  v.  Dukith,  etc.,  R,  Co.,  91  Wis. 

592—1057,  1424. 
Boehncke  v.  Brooklvn  City  R.  Co.,  3 

Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)   49—1114. 
Boering  v.  Chesapeake  Beach  Ry.  Co., 

193  U.  S.  442—1464. 
Boering   v.   Chesapeake,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

20  App.  D.  C.  .500—1033. 
Boesen  v.  Omaha  St.  Ry.  Co.,  79  Neb. 

381—1630. 
Bogard's   Admr.   v.   Illinois    Cent.   R. 

Co.,  144  Ky.  649—1136.  1141,  1407. 
Boggess  V.   Chesapeake,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

37  W.  Va.  297—988,   1057,  1582. 
Boggs  V.  Martin,   13   B.  Mon.    (Ky.) 

239—643,  644,  650. 
Bohannan  v.  Hammond,  42  Cal.  227 

—26. 
Bohannon's  Adm'x  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 

23  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1390—1405. 
Boice  V.  Hudson  R.  Co.,  61  Barb.   (N. 

Y.)   611—1024,  1025,  1026. 
Boies   V.    Hartford,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    37 

Conn.  273—570,  580. 
Boise  Citv  Trrig.,   etc.,   Co.  v.  Clark, 

131  Fed.  41.5—112. 
T.oisin  v.  Cobbs  &  Mitchell,  147  Mich. 

429—1580. 
Bolan  V.  Williamson,  2  Bay    (S.  C.) 

551—85. 
Bolan  V.  Williamson,  1  Brev.   (S.  C.) 

181—85. 
Bolnnd  v.  Missouri  R.  Co.,  36  Mo.  484 

—1081. 


Bolles   V.   Kansas   Citv   Southern   Ry. 

Co.,  134  Mo.  App.  696—1074.  1393. 
Bolles  V.   Lehigh   Vallcv   R.   Co..    159 

Fed.  694—202,  422. 
Bolton  V.  Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co..    172 

Mo.  92 — 1467. 
Bolton  Steam  Shipping  Co.  v.  Cross- 
man,  206  Fed.  183—2014. 
Bomar     v.     Maxwell,     28     Tenn.     (9 

Humph)    621—62,  1291.  1292,  129.5, 

1302. 
Bonce   v.    Dubuque    St.    Ry.    Co.,    53 

Iowa,  278 — 60,  1212,  1541. 
Bondv  v.  American   Transfer   Co.,    15 

Cai.   App.   746—387. 
Boner  v.  Merchants'  Steamboat  Co.,  1 

Jones  L.   (N.  C.)   211—27,  343. 
Bonneau  v.  North  Shore  R.  Co..   152 

Cal.   406—1497. 
Bonner  v.  Blum   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  25 

S.  W.  60—1294,  1296. 
Bonner  v.  Grumbach,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

482—1475.  1501,  1512. 
Bonner    v.     Marsh,     10     Sm.     &     M. 

(Miss.)  376—215,  330. 
Bonner    v.    Mayfield,    82    Tex.    234 — 

1083. 
Bonsteel  v.  Vanderbilt,  2\  Barb.    (N. 

Y.)    26—1707,   1708. 
Book  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Mo. 

App.  76—1428,  1429. 
Booker  v.  Reillv,  85  App.  Div.  614— 

632. 
Boon   V.    Steamboat   Belfast,   40   Ala. 

184—520. 
Boone  v.  Oakland  Trans.  Co.    (Cal.), 

73  Pac.  243—1563,  1565,  1681. 
Boorman  v.  American  Express  Co.,  21 

Wis.    152 — 425,   430,   459,   496. 
Booth  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  37  S.  W.   168—752. 
Booth  V.  Spuyten  Duyvil  Rolling  Mill, 

60  N.  Y.  487—623. 
Booth  V.  Terrill,  16  Ga.  20—531. 
Bordeaux  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  8  Hun   (N. 

Y.),  579—1394. 
Borden  v.  Richmond  &  D.  R.  Co.,  113 

N.  C.  570—667. 
Berk  V.  Norton,   2  McLean    (U.   S.), 

422—314. 
Boscowitz  V.  Adams  Express  Co.,  93 

111.   .52.3—4.33,   455.  526,  527,    1460. 
Boslev   V.   Baltimore,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  54 

W.V^a.  563— 896,  903. 


xlvi 


TABLE  Ob'  CA8ES. 
(The   reforonccs   are  to   the   pu^jes.) 


Boson  V.  Sanford,  2  Salk,  440—75. 
Bosqui     V.    fc^uiro     Ky.    Co.,    131    CaJ. 

390—1215,  121G,  14SG. 
Boss   V.    rrovidenco,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    15 

R.  I,   140,  21   Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

364 — 1213,    154li,   1606. 
Boston        Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

W.  Va.  31S— 1U68. 
Boston  V.  Donovan,  4  B.  &  Aid.  21 — 

490. 
Boston     V.     Pennsylvania     Co.,     116 

Fed.  235—736. 
Boston   &  A.   R.    Co.  v.   Brown,    177 

Mass.  65—1127. 
Boston  &  M.  R.  R.  v.  Sullivan,  177 

Mass.  230-167,  1127. 
Boston     Chan^ber    of     Commerce     v. 

Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    1    Int. 

Com.   Rep.    754—1794,    1796,    1829. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Chipman,  146 

Mass.  107—999. 
Boston,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Ordway,   140 

Mass.  510—542. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Proctor,  1  Al- 
len   (Mass.),  267—1025. 
Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Shanly,    107 

Mass.  568—128,  563,  564. 
Boston.    Fruit,    etc.,    Exch.    v.    New 

York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Int.  Com.  Rep. 

493—1775,   1783,   1832. 
Bostvvick   V.   Baltimore,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

45  N.  Y.  712—372,  445,  452,  469. 
Boswell   V.   Hudson   River   R.    Co.,    5 

Bosw.     (N.    Y.)     699—1450,    1456, 

1460,  1461. 
Bosworth    V.    Carr,    Rider    &    Engler 

Co.,  179  U.  S.  144—123. 
Bosworth  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87 

Fed.  72—123. 
Bosworth   V.   Union   R.   Co.,  25   R.   I. 

202—1187,   1202,   1217. 
Bosworth    V.    Walker,    83    Fed.    58— 

1427. 
Botany   Worsted   IMills   v.   Knott,    82 

Fed!  471—2004. 
Bctts  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  106  Mo.  App. 

397-898. 
Boucher   v.   Boston  &  M.   R.   Co.,   76 

N.  H.  91—1481. 
Bouker    v.    Long    Island    R.    Co.,    89 

Hun    (N.  Y.),  202—127. 
Boureo    v.    White,    159    Mass.    216— 

1094. 
Bourland    v.    Choctaw,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Tex.),  90  S.  W.  483—623. 


Bourne  v.  Gatliff,  42  E.  0.  L.  S37— 

3;)9. 
Bourne  v.  Gatliflf,    11   CI.  &   Q.   45— 

256. 
Bowdtm  V.  Fargo,  2  Misc.  R.   (N.  Y.) 

551-509. 
Bowden  v.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  25   S.   W.  987— 

618. 
Bowen  v.  Lake  Erie  Tel.  Co.    (Ohio), 

1  Am.  L.  Reg.  685—90. 
Bowen  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  18 

N.   Y.   408—947,   1080,    1114,    11  IS, 

1124,  1211,  1268,   1269,   1486,  1495, 

1512,   1535. 
Bowie   v.    Baltimore  &   O.   R.   Co.,    1 

McArthur    (D.    C),    94—180,    181, 

182,  183,  847,  926. 
Bowie  v.  Buflalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  U.  C. 

C.  P.  191—386,  396. 
Bowler    v.    Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    10 

Ohio  C.  C.  272—1301. 
Bowler,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  3  Ohio  Dec.  41—1294,   1300. 
Bowles    v.    Indiana    R.    Co.,    27    Ind. 

App.  672—1063. 
Bowles  V.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Hun 

(N.   Y.),   324—1494. 
Bowlin  v.  Nye,  64  Mass.    (10  Cush.) 

416—285. 
Bowlin  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  125  Mo. 

App.   419—1501. 
Bowman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   125 

U.  S.  465—1749,  1751,  1758. 
Bowman  v.  Hilton.  11  Ohio,  303—76, 

637,  638,  650,  759. 
Bowman  v.  Teall,  23  Wend.    (N.  Y.) 

306—13,  53,  75,  315,  358. 
Bowring  v.   Wabash   R.   Co.,   90   Mo. 

App.  324—890. 
Bovce  V.  Anderson,  2  Peters   (U.  S.), 

i50— 24,  31,  940. 
Bovcp    V.    California    Stage    Co.,    25 

Cal.   460—1488,   1717. 
Bovce  V.   Manhattan   R.   Co.,    118  N. 

Y.   314—1226,    1232,   1234. 
Boyd  V.  Dubois,  3  Campb.  133 — 33. 
Bovd   V.    Spencer,    103   Ga.   828—306, 

1025. 
Bovden   v.   Fitchburg  R.   Co.,   70   Vt. 

125—1600. 
Boy  Ian  v.  Hot  Springs  R.  Co.,  132  U. 

S.  146—999. 
Boyle  V.   Bush   Terminal  R.   Co.,   151 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   551—510. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.). 


xlvii 


Boyle  V.  Case,  18  Fed.  880—1727. 
Boylea   v.    Texas,   etc.,    K.    Co.    (Tex. 

Liv.  App.),  86  S.  W.  936—1106. 
Bracco    v.    Merchant's    Despatch    Tr. 
Co.,  61  Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.)    60-622. 
Bracket  v.  McXeir,  14  Johns.   (N.  Y.) 

170—609. 
Brackett  v.  Edgerton,  14  Minn.  174 — 

585. 
Brackner  v.  Public  Service  Corp.,  77 

N.  J.  L.  1—1562. 
Bradburn   v.   Great   Western   R.    Co., 

L.  R.  10  Exch.  1—1728. 
Bradburn    v.    \Miatcom    County   Ry., 

etc.,  Co.,  45  Wash.  582- 1U35. 
Bradford   v.   South   Carolina    R.   Co., 

7  Rich.  L.   (S.  C.)   201—740,  779. 
Bradford   v.   South    Carolina   R.    Co., 

10  Rich.  L.    (S.  C.)    221—781. 
Bradford  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 

Ark.  244—1410. 
Bradley  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W,  R.  Co., 

147   111.  App.  397—1354. 
Bradley    v.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

(Wis.),  68  N.  W.  410—616. 
Bradley  v.  Lake  Shore  &  M.  S.   Co., 

145  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)   312—565. 
Bradley  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  153 

Fed.  350—2002. 
Bradley   v.    Lehigh   Val.   R.    Co.    (U. 

S.   S.   D.   N.   Y.),   New   York   Law- 
Journal,  March  10,   1906—547. 
Bradley  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 

Conn.  294—121. 
Bradley   v.   Ohio   River,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

126  N.  C.  735—548. 
Bradley   v.    Second    Ave.    R.    Co.,    90 

Hun    (N.  Y.),  419—1642,   1643. 
Bradley  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  8  Daly 

(N.  Y.),  289—1596. 
Bradley  v.  Waterhouse,  M.  &  M.  154 

—523. 
Bradney   v.    Philadelphia   R.   T.    Co., 

232  Pa.  127—1621. 
Bradshaw   v.    Irish   Northwestern    R. 

Co.,   7   Ir.  R.   C.  L.   252—203,  386. 
Bradshaw   v.    Irish   Northwestern    R. 

Co.,  21  W.  R.  581—398. 
Bradshaw  v.  Railroad  Co.,  135  Mass, 

407—1415. 
Bradwell   v.   Pittsburg,  etc.,  Ry.   Co., 

139  Pa.  vSt.  404—1544. 
Brady  v.  Manhattan   R.   Co.,    127   N. 

Y.  4C— 1234. 
Bradv  v.  Pennsvlvania  R.  Co.,  2  Int. 

Com.  Rep.  78—1781. 


Eradv  v.  Springfield  Traction  Co.,  140 

Mo'.   App.    421— 124S,    1524. 
Bragg's   Adm'x   v.   Norfolk   &    \V.   R. 

Lo.,  110  Va.  867—1009,  1404,  1446. 
Brainard  v.  Nassau  Elec.  R.   Co.,  44 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   613—1634,  16:39. 
Brailhwaite  v.  Aikin,   1  N.  D.  475 — 

243. 
Braker  v.  F.  W.  Jarvis  Co.,  166  Fed. 

987—2029. 
Braly  v.  Fresno  City  Ry.  Co.,  9  CaL 

App.   417—1431,    1586. 
Branch  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88 

N.  C.  573—342,  353,  371,  457,  542, 

1458. 
Branch  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77 

N.  C.  347—135,  353. 
Brand  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  32  Ky. 

Law  Rep.  1335—621. 
Brand  v.  New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co., 

10   Misc.    Rep.    (N.   Y.)     128—399, 

410. 
Brand  v.  Schenectady,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    368—1131. 
Brandenstein    v.    Douglass,    105    Ga. 

845—536. 
Brandon  v.   Cumberland  Telephone  & 

Telegraph   Co.,    146   Ky.   639 — 94. 
Brandt  v.  Bowlby,  2  B.  &  Ad.  932 — 

583. 
Branley  v.   Southeastern   R.   Co.,   104 

E.  C.  L.  74—162. 
Brannon   &   Potts   v.   Atlantic   &    W. 

P.  R.  Co.,  4  Ga.  App.  749—803. 
Brant   v.   Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    22 

Ont.  Rep.  645—744. 
Brasher   v.    Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    12 

Colo.   384—208,   210. 
Brass  v.  Maitland,  6  El.  &  Bl.  471 — 

33,   128.   563. 
Brass  v.  North  Dakota,  153  U.  S.  391 

—70,  113. 
Brassell  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  84  N.  Y.  241—1229,   1690. 
Brauer   v.   Compania   De   Navigacion 

La  Flecha,  66  Fed.  776 — 2010,  2027. 
Brauer  v.  Oceanic  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  34 

Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.)    127—615,  624. 
Braun    v.   Northern    Pac.    R.   Co.,    79 

Minn.  484—1443. 
Braun    v.    Union    Ry.    Co.,    115    App. 

Div.    (N.  Y.)    560-1502. 
Braun  v.  Webb,  65  N.  Y.  Snpp.  668, 

23  Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)   243—67. 
Br;uin«tein  v.  People's  Rv.   Co.    (Del. 

Supar.),   78  Atl.   609—1502. 


xl  \'  i  i  i 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


iJiciwlov   V.  The  ,liiii   W  ai>un,   -    Uoml. 

(V.  S.)   .35(1 — .'Hi. 
Jtravmer    v.    Soattlc    IJ.,    etc..    Co.,    o.') 

Uasii.  ;m(;--i;5!)1, 

Brazie  v.  St.  Unii.s  Tr.  Co.    (Mo.),  70 

^;.   \V.  7US— 10>S1. 
Brtiitknofk    Canal    Nav.    Co.    v.    Prit- 

ohard,  G  T.  R.  750—14. 
Breeil    v.    Mitchell,   48    Ca.    533— 261, 

5G9. 
Breen  v.  N.-w  York  C«nt.  R.  Co.,  109 
N.  Y.  •i;)7— 1479.   1511.   1512,   1656. 
Breen   v.    St.    Ixmis   Transit   Co.,    108 

Mo.  App.  443—1392. 
Breen   v.   St.   Louis   Transit   Co.,    102 

Mo.   App.   479—1426.    1712. 
Breen  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Tex. 

43—1015.   1027,   1391. 
Broese  v.  Cnited  States  Teleg.  Co..  48 

N.  Y.  132.   141—87,  92. 
Brehm   v.    Croat   Western   R.   Co.,   34 

Barb.    (X.   Y.)    256—1501,   1512. 
Brelwne    v.    A4ams    Express    C<3.,    25 

Md.   328—430,   456. 
Brehme    v.    Dinsmore,    25    Md.    328— 

425. 
."Bremer  v.  Pleiss,   121  Wis.  61—1610. 
Breiinan  v.   Fair  Haven,  etc..  R.   Co., 

45    Conn.   284—996,    1288,    1644. 
Brennen   v.    St.   Louis,   92   Mo.   488 — 

410. 
Bretherton  v.  Wood,  3  Brod.  &  B.  54 

—948,  957,  1136. 
Brevig    v.    C'hicago,    etc..    R.    Co.,    64 

Minn.    168—1017,    1059. 
Brewer  v.  Central  of  Ga.  R.   Co.,   84 

Fed.  258—162.   1829. 

Brewer  v.  New  Y'ork,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124 

N.  Y.  ,-)9— 498,  1049,  1452,  1454, 

1463,  1465. 

Brewster    v.    Interborough    Rap.    Tr. 

Co.,  68  Misc.  R.   (N.  Y.)   348—1152. 

Brewster  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,   145   App.   Div.  51 — 474. 
Brice  v.   Southern   Rv-   Co.,   85   S.   C. 

216—1159.    1574. 
Brick  V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

145  X.  C.   20.3—1294,   1375. 
Bricker  v.  Philadelphia  &  R.  Co.,  132 

Pa,_  1 973. 

Briddon  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  28 

L.  J.  Exch.  51—344,  838. 
Briddon  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  32 

L.  T.  94 — 363. 
Bridge  v.  Austin,  4  Mass.  115 — 2035. 


r.ridge   v.  Johnson.  5   Wend.    (N.  Y.) 

n.-iO— 165. 
I'.ridge    V.    Oshkosh,    71    Wis.    363— 

1 561). 
Bridges    v.   Ashville,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   27 

S.  C.  462—449,  451. 
Bridges    v.    Jackson    Elcc.    Ry.,    etc., 

Co.,  80  Miss.  584—1102. 
Bridges   v.   North    London   R.   Co.,   L. 

R.  6  C^.  B.  377,  L.  R.  7  H.  L.  213— 

1226,   1235,   1593,   1673. 
Bridges  v.  Southern  Rv.  Co.,  137  Ga. 

107—1382. 
Bridgman    v.    The   Steamboat   Emily, 

18   Iowa,   509—597. 
Brien  v.  Bennett,  8  C.  &  P.  724—987, 

976. 
Briggs  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Allen 

(Mass.),    246—80,    223,    453,    637, 

(i;!8.  639,  649. 
Briggs  V.  Durham  Tr.  Co.,  147  N.  C. 

389—1496. 
Briggs    V.    Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.,    24 

I.e.  Q.  B.  510—1015,  1026. 
Brigtjs  V.  Minneapolis,  52  Minn.  36 — 

1404,   1592. 
Briggs  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  72 

N.  Y.  26—1510. 
Briggs  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  28 

Barb.    (N.   Y^)    515—276,  285,  3G8, 

600.  604.  605,  607. 
Briggs  V.  Tavlor,  28  Vt.  180—6,  549, 

1461. 
Briggs    V.    Varid'erbilt,    19    Barb.    (N. 

Y.)    346—1707.    1708. 
Brightman   v.   Union   St.   R.   Co.,    167 

:\Iass.    113— 1589. 
Brignoli    v.    C^hicago,    etc.,    R.    CO.,    4 

Daly    (N.   Y.),    182—1727. 
Brill   V.   Grand   Trunk   R    Co.,   20   U. 

C.  C.  P.  440—530. 
Brimmer  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  101 

111.  App.   198-1486. 
Brinck  v.  North  German  Lloyd  S.  S. 

Co.,  186  N.  Y.  525—2040. 
Brind  v.  Dale.  8  C.  &  P.  207—13.  73. 
Brind  v.  Dale,  2  M.  &  Rob.  80—107. 
Brineger   v.    Louisville   &   N.    R.    Co., 

24  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1973—1164.  1633. 
Brintnall  v.  Saratoga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Vt.  666—741,  747,  776,  778. 
Brisbin   v.   Boston   Elevated   Rv.   Co., 

207   Mass.  553-1625. 
Bripcoe   v.   Metropolitan    St.    Ry.   Co., 

222   Mo.    104—1522. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages, )^ 


Tflix 


Bristol   V.  Rensselaer,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   9 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    158—132,  212. 
Bristol  V.  Wilsmore,  1  B.  &   S.  514— 

644. 
Bristol,  etc.  R.  Co.  v.  Collins,  5  H.  & 

N.  969—744. 
British    Columbia,    etc..    Co.    v.    Net- 

tleship.  L.  R.  3  C.  P.  499—83.  589, 

599. 
British,  etc..  Ins.  Co.  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  63  Tex.  475—547. 
British,    etc.,    Ins.    Co.    v.    Portland 

Flouring  Mills  Co.,  124  Fed.  855— 

669. 
British,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Southern  Pac. 

Co.,  72   Fed.  285—676. 
Brittan    v.    Barnaby,    62    U.    S.     (21 

How.)     527—635,      636,    643,     645, 

676. 
Britton  v.  Atlantic,  etc..  Air  Line  R. 

Co.,  88  N.  C.  536—1069,  1070,  1071, 

1133,  1143,  1190. 
Broadway   v.   American   Expiess   Co., 

168  Mass.  257—814. 
Broadwell  v.  Butler  &  Co.,  6  McLean 

(U.  S.),  296—367.  391. 
Broadwood   v    Southern   Express  Co., 

148  Ala.   17—560. 
Brock  V.  Gale,  14  Fla.  523—454,  1297. 
Brockway   v.   American   Expres.?    Co., 

171  Mass.  158—931. 
Brockway   v.    American    Express    Co., 

168   Mass.   257—38,   803. 
Brockway  v.  Lascala.  1  Edm.  Sel.  Cas. 

(N.  Y.)    13.5—1211,   1241.   1672. 
Brodie   v.    Northern    R.    Co..    6    Ont. 

Rep.   180—768. 
Brokaw  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,   Co.,   32 

N.  J.  L.  .328— 1181, 'l  184. 
Bromlev    v.    Birmingham    M.    R.    Co. 

(AlaO,  11   So.  341—1517. 
Bromlev  v.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

193  Ma.ss.  45.3—1661. 
Broiisfiri    V.    Atlanti*'    Coast   Line    R. 

Co.,  76  S.  C.  9—385. 
Broodnox  v.  Baker.  94  N.  C.  67.5—58. 
BrookC'   V.    Grand   Trunk   R.    Co..    15 

Mich.  332—1024. 
Brooke  v.  Nmv  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108 

Pa.  St.  529—218.  228,  449. 
Brooke    v.    Pickwick     4    Bing,    218 — 

62.  .527. 
Brooks   V.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    135 

Mass.   21—1237.    1675,    1677. 
Brooks  V.   Delaware,  etc.,  R.   Co..   88 

N.  y.  Supp.  961—248. 


Brooks  V.  Diusmore,  3  6t.  K.   (N.  Y.) 

587—568. 
Brooks  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108 

Pa.  St.  529—218. 
Brooks  V.  Northern  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  38 

Or.   387—1384. 
Brooks    V.    Old    Colony    R.    Co..    168 

Mass.  164—1203. 
Brooks  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co., 

152  N.  C.  665—382. 
Brookstone   v.   Westcott   Express  Co., 

29  Misc.  R.   (N.  Y.)   634—280. 
Brooman  v.   Houston,  etc..   R.   Co.,   7 

Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    234—1647. 
Brown   v.   Adams,    3    Tex.   App.    Oiv. 

Cas.,   §   390—614. 
Brown  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  15  W. 

Va.   812—419,    425,   428,   432,   577, 

1452. 
Brown   v.   Atlantic   Coast   L.   R.   Co., 

8S  S.  C.  53—1482. 
Brown    v.    Atlantic,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    19 

S.  C.  39—176,  183,  410,  414. 
Brown  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   136 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)   690—1422. 
BrowTi  V.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Pa. 

316—450.  451,  .522,  527,  953,   1306, 

1346,   1352. 
Brown    v.    Canadian    Pa,c.    R.    Co.,    3 

Manitoba  L.  Rep.  496 — 1350. 
Brown  v.  Central  of  Ga.  R.  Co.,   128 

Ga.  635—1395. 
Brown    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.     51 

Iowa,  235—1258,   1427,   1428. 
Brown    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co..    80 

^Yis.  162—1675. 
Brown    v.    Cliicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    54 

Wis.  342—1701,  1706,  1709. 
Brown  v.  Clayton,  12  Ga.  564,  580 — 

355,  625. 
Brown   v.   Clegg,   63   Pa.   St.    51—55, 

57. 
Brown  v.  Collins,  53  N.  H.  442 — 1122. 
Brown    v.    Congress,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   49 

Mich.    153—1476,    1487,    1533. 
Brown  v.  Cunard  S.  S.  Co.,  16  N.  K 

717—516. 
Brown  v.  Dennison,  2  Wend.   (N    Y  ) 

593—80. 
Brown    v.   Eastern    R.    Co.,    U    Cush 

(Mass.)       97—1330.      1333,      1452 

1453. 
Brown   v.   European,  etc.,   R.   Co     58 

Me.   384—1591. 
Brown    v.   Georgia,   etc,,   R.   Co      119 

Oil,   RS_i7os. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Brown  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  54  N". 

n,  535—412,  413. 
Brown   v.   Grmt  Western   R.   Co.,   52 

L.  T.  N.  S.  G22— 1G!)0. 
Brown  v.  ITadley,  43  Kan.  267 — 604. 
Brown   v.   Hannibal,   etc.,   E.   Co..   60 

Mo.    58S.    114S,    1181,    1560    170G, 

1713. 
Brown  v.  Harris,  68  Mass.    (2  Gray) 

35i1 — 653. 
Brown   v.   Hodgson,    4   Taunt.    180 — 

530. 
Brown  v.  Houston,   114  U.   S.  622— 

1735,  1748,  1758. 
Brown   v.   Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.,    100 

Ky.  525—886. 
Brown  v.  Interborouc;h  Rap.  Tr.  Co., 

56  Misc.  R.   (N.  Y.)    637—1174. 
Brown  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

Kan.  634—1071. 
Brown  v.   Kendall,   6   Cash.    (Mass.) 

296—1122. 
Brown  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

111.  App.  140 — 441,  453,  775. 
Brown,  v.   Maryland,    12   Wheat.    (U. 

S.)   419—1734,  1742,  1747. 
Brown   v.    Memphis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    7 

Fed.    (U.  S.)   51—1138,  1407,  1409, 

1435. 
Brown    v.    Memphis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    5 

Fed.  499—1409. 
Brown  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Fed. 

37,  51—1070,  1390,  1727. 
Brown  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

Minn.  298—1433. 
Brown   v.   Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    64 

Mo.  536—1016,  1017,  1038. 
Brown   (H.  W.)   v.  Mott,  22  Ohio  St. 

149—251,  744. 
Brown  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

75  Hun    (N.  Y.)    355—1,  60,  1127. 
Brown  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  34 

N.  Y.  404—1114,  1118,  1119,  1211, 

1269. 
Brown  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  32 

N.  Y.  597—1126,  1561. 
Brown  v.  Oregon-Washington  R.,  etc., 

Co.,  63  Ore.  396—785,  789. 
Brown   v.   Philadelphia,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

36  App.  D.  C.  221—645,  657. 
Brown  v.  Piper,  91  U.  S.  37—780. 
Brown   v.    Pontiac,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    133 

Mich.   371—848. 
Brown  V.  Powell  D.  S.  Coal  Co.,  L.  R. 

10  C.  P.  562—229. 


Brown  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  N. 

C.   34—1068,   1613. 
Brown  v.  Ralston,  4  Rand   (Va.)   504 

—677. 
Brown  v.  Rapid  Ry.  Co.    (Mich.),  96 

N.  W.  925—174,  999,  1390. 
Brown  v.  Scarboro,  97  Ala.  316—986, 

1066,  1627. 
Brown  v.  The  Water  Witch,  Fed.  Cas. 

No.  1971—189. 
Brown  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  81  Kan. 

701—1536. 
Brown  v.  Washington  &  G.  R.  Co.,  11 

App.  D.  C.  37—1615. 
Brown  v.  Wier,  95  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.) 

78—600,  023. 
Brown    &    Haywood    Co.   v.    Pennsyl- 
vania Co.,  63  Minn.  546 — 241. 
Browne  v.  Johnson,  29  Tex.  43 — 580. 
Brown,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  Co., 

63   Minn.  546—402. 
Brownell  v.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Int.  Com.  R.  285—1786,  1787,  1789. 
Brownell  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.  47  Mo.  239 

—1562. 
Browning   v.    Belford,    83    App.    Div. 

(N.  Y.)   144—631. 
Browning  v.  Goodrich  Transp.  Co.,  78 

Wis.  391—571,  586,  773. 
Browning  v.   Long   Island   R.   Co.,   2 

Daly    (N.  Y.)    117—482. 
Brown's  Admin'ri  v.  Louisville  &  N. 

R.  Co.,  103  Ky.  211—1448. 
Broyles  v.  Central  of  Ga.  R.  Co.,  166 

Ala.  616—1029,  1030. 
Bruce  v.   Chicago,  etc.,   Ry.  Co.,   136 

Mo.  App.  204—1659. 
Bruflf  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.    (Ky.), 

121  S.  W.  475—1484,  1604. 
Bruhl  V.  Coleman,  113  Ga.  1102—211. 
Brulard  v.  The  Alvin,  45  Fed.  766— 

1256. 
Brumberger    v.    Joline,     125    N.    Y. 

Supp.  519—1490. 
Brumer  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,   101 

111.  App.   198—1534. 
Bruno    v.    Brooklyn    City    R.    Co.,    5 

Misc.     Rep.     (N.     Y.)     327—1638, 

1641. 
Brunson    v.    Boatwright    v.    Atlantic 

Coast  Line  R.  Co.,  76  S.  C.  9 — 196, 

400. 
Brunswick  &  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  101 

Ga.  684—997,   1000,   1212. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


li 


(The  references  are   to   the   pages.) 


Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ponder,  117 

Ga.  63—1192. 
Brusch  V.  Railway  Co.,  52  Minn.  510 

—1222. 
Brusch  V.  St.  Paul  City  R.  Co. (Minn.) 

55  N.  W.  57—1640. 
Brush    V.    Sabula,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    43 

Iowa,  554 — 455. 
Brush   V.    St.    Paul   City   R.    Co.,    52 

Minn.  572—1561. 
Bruty  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  32  U. 

C.  Q.  B.  66—1292. 
Bryan  v.  Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.,  169  111. 

App.  181—383. 
Bryan    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    63 

Iowa,  464—1170,   1175. 
Bryan   v.   Memphis,    etc.,   R.   Co.,    11 

Bush    (Ky.)    597—754. 
Bryan  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  32  Mo. 

App.  228—1450,  1461,  1465. 
Bryant  v.  American  Tel.  Co.,  1  Daly 

(N.  Y.)   575—90. 
Bryant  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   53 

Fed.  997—958,  1064,  1513. 
Bryant  v.  Clifford,  13  Mete.   (Mass.) 

138—267,  531. 
Bryant  v.  North  Western  R.  Co.,  68 

Ga.  805—815. 
Bryant  v.  Rich,  106  Mass.  180—1130, 

1131,  1147,  1166. 
Bryant  v.  Southwestern  R.  Co.,  68  Ga. 

805 — 454,  745,  897. 
Buchanan  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  3 

Int.  Com.  Rep.  655—1781. 
Bucher  v.  Cheshire  R.  Co.,  125  U.  S. 

555 — 450,  1600,  1891. 
Bucher  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  131  Mass. 

156—998,  1600. 
Bucher  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  161  N. 

Y.  222—1690. 
Bucher  v.  New  York   Cent.,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,  98  N.  Y.  128—1227,  1243,  1236, 

1254,  1256,  1676,  1677,  1679. 
Buck  V.  Manhattan  R.   Co.,   15  Daly 

(N.  Y.)   550—1220,  1476. 
Buck  V.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  53  Wash. 

113—879. 
Buck  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  150  Pa. 

St.  170—550,  570,  571,  576,  578. 
Buck  V.  Peoples  St.  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  108 

Mo.  179 — 975,  906,  1057. 
Buck  V.  Peoples  St.  Ry..  etc.,  Co.,  46 

Mo.  App.  555-990,  1031. 
Buokhoe  V.  Third  Ave.  K.  Co.,  64  App. 

Div.    (N.  Y.)    360—1108,  1583. 


Buckeye    Pipe    Line    Co.    v.    Fee,    15 

Ohio  Civ.  Ct.  R.  637—241. 
Buckland    v.    Adams    Exp.    Co.,    97 

Mass.  124—39,  40,  41,  419,  427,  453. 
Buckland  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

181  Mass.  3—1118. 
Buckley  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  18 

Mich.   121—385. 
Buckley   v.   Old    Colony   R.    Co.,    161 

Mass.  26—1013. 
Buckman  v.  Levi,  3  Campb.  414 — 182, 

185. 
Buckmaster  v.  Great  Eastern  R.  Co., 

23  L.  T.  N.  S.  471—1261. 
Budd  V.  New  York,  143  U.  S.  517— 

70,   113,   114. 
Budd  V.  United  Carriage  Co.,  25  Or. 

314—1487. 
Buddy  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Mo. 

App.  206—255,  381,  570. 
Budgett  V.  Binnington,   1  Q.  B.  35 — 

369. 
Buol  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  31  N. 

Y.  314—1580,  1581. 
Buesching  v.  Gaslight,  73  Mo.  229— 

1545. 
Buesching  v.  St.  Louis  Gas  L.  Co.,  6 

Mo.  App.  85—1476. 
Buffalo  V.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  N.  Y. 

168—973,  974,  976,  986,  990. 
Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Hara  (Pa.), 

9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.   Cas.  317—1034, 

1451. 
Bugge    V.    Seattle    Electric    Co.,    54 

Wash.  483—961,   1003,   1007,   1245. 
Bulkley  v.   Naumkeag   Steam   Cotton 

Co.,  24  How.   (U.  S.)    386—192. 
Bullard   v.    American    Exp.    Co.,    107 

Mich.  695—163,  254. 
Bullard  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  N. 

H.  27—1555. 
Bullard  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  583—1293,  1306. 
Bullard  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,   10 

Mont.  168—1759,  1791. 
Bullock    V.    Atlantic    Coast    Line    R. 

Co.,  152  N.  C.  66—961,  1007,  1429. 
Bullock   V.    Charleston,   etc.,    Rv.    Co., 

82  S.  C.  375—354,  598,  607.  ' 
Bullock  V.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  60 

N.  J.  L.  24—283. 
Bullock  V.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  55  S.  W.   184—972. 
Bullock  v.  White  Star  S.   S.   Co.,   30 

Wash.  448—1123,   1708- 


lii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   refercuocs   arc   to   tlie   pages.) 


Buman  v.  Miciiigaii  lout.  R.  Co.,  lliS 

Mich.  G51— 97S. 
BunvWar    v.    United    Tract.    Co.,    198 

Pa.  yt.  198—1042. 
Bunch  V.  Cliaileston  &  VV.  C.  Rv.  Co., 

91   vS.  C.    i:?9— 1480. 
Bunting   v.    Hogsett,   139   Pa.   St.   30:5 

— 12()7. 
Burbridge    v.    Kansas;    City    Cable    R. 

Co..  31)  Mo.  App.  (i09— 1690. 
Burckle   v.    l^khart,    3   N.    Y.    132— 

450. 
Burdette      v.      Chicago      Auditorium 

Ass'n,   166  111.   App.    186—1531. 
Burge   V.   Georgia  Rv..  etc.,   Co..    133 

Ga.  423—1392. 
Burger   v.   Omaha,   etc..   St.   Ry.   Co., 

139  Iowa,  645—1585. 
Burgess  v.  Atcliison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   83 

Kan.  497—1399. 
Burgess    v.    Stowe,    134    Mich.    204 — 

101. 
Burgevin  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 
69  Hun    (X.  Y.).  479—1349,   1350, 
1356. 
Burgher  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   105 

Iowa,  335—876. 
Burgher  v.   Wabasli   R.   Co.,   139  Mo. 

App.  62—442.  886. 
Burgoyne    v.    Chicago    Citv   Ry.    Co., 

167 'ill.  App.  59—1540.  ' 
Burke  v.  Bay  Citv  Traction,  etc.,  Co., 

147  Mich.  172—1087. 
Burke  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co..  108 
111.  App.  565—997,  998,  1212,  1250. 
Burke  v.  Concord  R.  Corp..  61  N.  H. 

160—778. 
Burke  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  119  N.  Y.  Supp. 

309—422. 

Burke   v.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co..    1") 

Mo.    App.    491—1056.    1071,     1145, 

1424. 

Burke  v.   Piatt,    172    Fed.    777—707. 

Burke   v.   Seventh   Ave.,   etc..   R.   Co.. 

49  Barb.    (N.  Y.^    529—1588. 
Burke  v.  South  Eastern  R.  Co..  5  C. 

P.  Div.  1—431. 
Burke  v.  State,  64  Misc.  Rep.  558— 

1490,   1538. 
Burke  v.  United  States  Express  Co., 

87  111.  App.  505—830. 
Burke      V.      Witherbee,       11       Allen 

aiass.),  312—1115. 
Burlingame    v.    Adams    Express    Co., 
171  Fed.  902—349. 


Biirliiigtun   &    M.    R.    Co.    v.    Chicago 

liuniber  Co.,   15   N<>1..  390—693. 
lUuliiigton,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.    .'Vrnis,   15 

Ndb.  09—385,  396. 
Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Northwest- 

e-rn  Fuel  Co.,  31   Fed.  65:^—1788. 
Burlington,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Ruse.    11 

Neb.    117—1145,   1423,    1424. 
Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spearman, 

12  Iowa,  117—121. 
Burnoll  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  4") 

N.  Y.  184 — 44,  230,  570,  1306,  1331, 

1349,   1353,  1356,   1361. 
Burn(?s  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  167 

Mo.   App.   62—1304. 
Burnes    v.    Cliioago,   etc.,   K   Co.,    144 

Mo.   App.   71—1387. 
Burnett  v.  Great  North,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

L.  R.   10  App.   147—1228. 
Burnett   v.    Lvnch,   5    B.   &    C.    589 — 

1702. 
Burnett  v.   Pennsvlvania  R.   Co.,   176 

Pa.  St.  45—952'. 
Burnham   v.   Cape  Vincent  Seed   Co.. 

142  N.  Y.    169—217. 
Burnham  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  168 

Mich.   55—1398. 
Burnham    v.    Grand    Trunk,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  63  Me.  298—1417. 
Burnham  v.  Wabash  Western  R.  Co.. 

91  Tex.  180—1012. 
Burns    v.   B'llefontaine,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

50  Mo.   ir^9— 1640.   1641. 
Burns    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.   Co.,    151 

Mo.  App.  573—442.  885,  893. 
Burns    v.    Chicago,    etc.,   R.   Co.,    104 

Wis.  646—814,  856. 
Burns  v.  Cork,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Ir.  ('. 

L.  R.  543—1120. 
Burns    v.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    233 

Pa.  304-1206,'  1538. 
Burr  V.  Pennsvlvania  R.  Co.    (N.  J.), 

44  Atl.  84.5—1661. 
Burrell  v.  North,  61   E.  C.  L.  681— 

194. 
Burritt  v.  Rench,  4  McLean    (U.  S. ) . 

32.5—26,  591. 
Burroughs  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  67 

Mich'.  351—413,  772. 
Burroughs    v.    Norwich,    etc..    R.    Co., 
100    Mass.    26—81,    539,    739,    763, 

766,  780. 
Burrowes  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  85 

Neb.  497-171. 
Burrows  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  63  N.  Y.  556 

—1598,  1675,  1680. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


liii 


(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


Bursley      v.      Hamiliton,      15      Pick. 

(Mass.)    40—532. 
Burt  V.  Douglass  Countv  St.  Ry.  Co., 

83  Wis.  229—1)08,   1487. 
Burtis  V.  Buffalo,  etc..  R.  Co.,  24  N. 

Y.  269—533,  739,  754. 
Burton  v.  Davis,   15   La.  Ann.  448 — 

1122. 
Burton   v.   Hudson   River   R.   Co.,    18 

N.  Y.  248—1541. 
Burton  v.  Ringrose,  63  Hun   (N.  Y.), 

163—645. 
Burton   v.   Wichita   R.,    etc.,    Co.,    89 

Kan.  611—1684. 
Burton    v.    Wilkinson,    18    Vt.    186 — 

328. 
Burton  Stock  Car  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,   1   Int.  Com.  R.  329—1787, 

1826. 
Burwell   v.   Raleigh,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   94 

N.  C.  451—133,   190,  551,  569. 
Busch  v.  Interborough   Rapid  T.  Co., 

187  N.  Y.  388—980. 
Bush  V.  Barnett,  96   Cal.   202—1475, 

1488,  1512. 
Bush  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  3  Dak. 

444—586. 
Bush  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Mo. 

App.   62—210,  235,  237. 
Bushnell  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,   118  Mo. 

App.  618—902. 
Business    Men's    Assoc,    v.    Chicago, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  Rep.  41 — 

1781,  1828. 
Bussey    v.    Mississippi    Val.    Transp. 

Co.,  24  La.  Ann.   165 — 54,  55. 
Bussey   v.   Memphis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    13 

Fed.  330—138,  755. 
Bussey    v.    Memphis,    etc..    R.    Co.,   4 

McCrarv    (U.    S.),    405—137,    365, 

596,  729. 
Buston    V.    Pennsylvania   R.    Co.,    119 

Fed.  808— 762.  "776. 
Butcher   v.   Ix)ndon,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    16 

C.  B.   (N.  S.)    13—1295. 
Butcher's,     etc.    Stockyards     Co.     v. 

I^uisvillp,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Fed.  35 

—124,  161.  1869. 
Butler  V.  Basing,  2  C.  &  P.  613—108, 

186. 
Butler  V.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

8  Lea   (Tenn.),  32—381,  398. 
Butler  V.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  3  E. 

D.  Sm.   (N.  Y.)   571—44,  186,  1299, 
1300. 

Butlor  V.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  4  Misc. 
Rep.   (N.  Y.)   401—1562. 


Butler  V.  Pittsiburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  139 

Pa.   St.    195—1643. 
Butler   V.    Steinway   R.   Co.,   87   Hun 

(N.  Y.),   10—1595. 
Butler    V.    Wilmington    City   Ry.   Co. 

(Del.    Super.),    78   Atl.    871—1536, 

1285 
Butler  V.  Woolcott,  2  B.  &  P.  N.  R. 

64—630. 
Butt  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  11  C. 

B.  140—464. 
Butterfield   v.    Stranahan,    192   U.   S. 

470—1734. 
Button  v.  Frink,  51  Conn.  342—1533. 
Button   V.   Hudson   River   R.   Co.,    18 

N.  Y.  248—1507,  1516,  1543,  1545. 
Buxton  V.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

3   Q.  B.   549—1104. 
Bvrne  v.  Brooklyn  Citv,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

^6  Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    260—1555. 
Byrae   v.   Fargo,   36   Misc.   Rep.    (N. 

Y.)    543—197,  384. 
Byrne   v.    Nevr    York    Cent.,    etc.,    R- 

Co.,  83  N.  Y.  620—1587. 
Byron  v.  Lynn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  177  Mass. 

'303—1089,    1106,    1222. 
Buzby    V.    Philadelphia   Traction    Co., 

126  Pa.  St.  559—1690. 


c. 

Cabban  v.  Downe,  5  Esp.  N.  P.  41 — 

83. 
Cable  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,   122  N.   C. 

892—1256. 
C'adwallader  v.   Grand  Trunk  R.   Co. 

(Can.),    9    L.    C.    Rep.    169—1292, 

1294,  1296. 
Caher  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co..  75  N. 

II.  125—1431. 
Cahill  V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  E. 

C.  L.   154—1300,   1301. 
Caihn  V.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.   71  III. 

96—256.   407. 
Oailiff  V.  Danvers,  1  Peake  N.  P.  114 

13,  412. 
Cain   V.   Atlantic  Coast   Line   R.   Co., 

74  S.  C.  89—1085. 
Cain  V.  Minneapolis,   etc.,   R.  Co.,   39 

Minn.  297—1148,  1181. 
Cairo  First  Nat.  v.  Crocker,  11  Mass 

16.S— 233. 
Cairus  v.  RnbinvS,  8  M.  &  W.  258 — 84 

ins,  413. 
Calderon  v.  Aila>«  S.  S.  Co.,  170  U    S 

272—1913,  2010. 


liv 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references  are   to   the   pages.) 


Caldwell    V.    Erie  Transfer     Co.,      13 

Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.)    37—1303. 
Ciildwell  V.  Felton,  21  Ky.  Law  Rep. 

397—030. 
Caldwell  v.  Murphy,  1  Duer  (N.  Y.), 

233—948,  1211. 
Caldwell    v.    New    Jersey    Steamboat 
Co..  47  N.  Y.  282—578,  947,   1080, 
1114,  1118,  1120,  1505,  1511,  1533, 
1724. 
Caldwell   v.   North   Carolina,    187   U. 

S.  022—1734. 
Caldwell  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89 

Ga.  550—44,  944,   I2o0,   1250. 
Ca'dwell  v.  Southern   Express   Co.,   1 

Flipp   (U.  S.),  85—324,  325. 
CakMider-Vanderlioof   Co.   v.   Chicago, 

etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  99  Minn.  295— 505. 
Calhoun  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co., 

119  Fed.  540—07,  1423. 
California  Ins.  Co.  v.  Union  Compress 

Co.,   133  U.  S.  387—190. 
California  Nav.  &  Imp.  Co.  v.  Stock- 
ton,   Milling    Co.,    184    Fed.    309— 
2013. 
California  Powder  Works  v.  Atlantic, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,   113  Cal.  329—470. 
Callaway  v.  Mellett    (Ind.  App.),  44 

N.  E.  198—1025. 
Calumet    Elec.    St.    Ry.    Co.    v.    Jen- 
nings, 83  111.  App.  012—1488. 
Calvin  v.  Jones,  3  Dana   (Ry.),  370^ 

592. 
Camblos    v.    Philadelphia    &    R.    Co., 

Fed.  Cas.  No.  2331—009. 
Camden,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Baldauf,   10 
Pa.    St.    07—420,    458,    527,    1330, 
1453. 
Camden  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Bausch  (Pa.), 

7  AtL  731—9.53,  1450,  1405. 
Camden,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Belknap,  21 
Wend.    (N.   Y.)    354—01,    02,   420, 
1451. 
Camden,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Burke,    13 
Wend.   (N.  Y.)   611—24,  41,  44,  02, 
948,    1084,    1300. 
Camden,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Forsyth,   01 
Pa.  St.  81—740,  759,  767,  771,  772. 
Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoosey,  99  Pa. 

492—1200,   1506,   1038. 
Camden  Iron  Works  v.  United  States, 

L58  Fed.  501—1932,  1953,  1903. 
Camer   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    153 

Iowa,   103—1813. 
Cameron    v.    Lewi^ton,    etc.,    St.    Ry., 
103  Me.  482—1101,  1473. 


Camp    V.    Hartford,    etc.,    Steamboat 

Co.,  43  Conn.  333—418,  429,   1457. 

Camp   V.   Western   Union   Tel.   Co.,    1 

Mete.    (Ky.)    104—87,  91,  92. 
Campbell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86 

Iowa,  587—1732. 
Campbell  v.  Conner,  70  N.  Y.  424— 

041. 
Campbell  v.   Consol.   Tract.   Co.,   201 

Pa.   107-1507. 
Campbell    v.     Iowa    Cent.     Ry.     Co. 

(Iowa),  99  N.  W.  1001—587. 
Campbell  v.  Los  Angeles  R.  Co.,  135 

Cal.  137—1571. 
Campbell  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  78 

Neb.   479—1358,   1381. 
Campbell  v.  Moore,   1  Harp.    (S.  C.) 

408—308. 
Campbell  v.  Morse,  Harper    (S.   C.) 

408—72. 
Campe  v.  Weir,  28  Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.) 

243—509,  572. 
Campion  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  43 

Fed.  775—133,  396. 
Campion   v.   Colvin,   3   Bing.  N.   Cas. 

17—048. 
Canaday  v.  United  Rys.  Co.,  134  Mo. 

282—954. 
Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  v.  Charbonneau, 

0  Montreal  L.  R.  Q.  B.  287—708. 
Canadian   Pac.  R.  Co.   v.  Johnson,   6 

Montreal  Q.  B.  213—1017. 
Canada   Southern   R.  Co.  v.   Interna- 
tional Bridge  Co.,  L.  R.  8  App.  723 
—102,  1702. 
Canady    v.    United    Rys.    Co.    of    St. 

Louis,  134  Mo.  App.  282-940. 
Canal  Co.  v.  Jenkins,  1  Colo.  App.  425 

—111. 
Candee  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73 

Conn.  067—667,  873. 
Candee    v.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    21 

Wis.  584—744,  1361. 
Candee  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  34 

Wis.  471—88,  91,  93. 
Candiff  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42 

La.  Ann.  477—1059. 
Canfield  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 

N.  Y.  532—402,  509,  575. 
Canfield  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46 

N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  238—568. 
Canfield  v.  Northern  R.  Co.,  18  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)   586—782. 
Cantling  v.  Hannil)al,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 
54  Mo.  385—98,  1297. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Iv 


(The  references  are   to  the   pages.) 


Canton  v.  Ruiuicv,  13  Wend.   (N.  Y.) 

387—52. 
Cantu  V.  Bennett,  39  Tex.  303 — 155, 

307,  448. 
Cantwell   v.   Pacific   Express   Co.,   58 

Ark.   487—344,   354. 
Cantwell  v.  Terminal  R.  Ass'n  of  St. 

Louis,  160  Mo.  App.  393—1344. 
Capehart   v.    Granite    Mills,   97    Ala. 

353—190,  232,  590. 
Capehart  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  3 

Inter.  Com.  Rep.  278—729,  1825. 
Capehart  v.  Seaboard,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81 

N.  C.  438—487. 
Capehart  v.  Seaboard,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77 

N.  C.  355-481. 
Capital    Traction    Co.    v.    Brown.    39 

App.  D.  C.  473—1650. 
Caples  V.  Louisville,   etc.,  R.  Co.,   17 

Mo.   App.    14—516,   584. 
Car  Co.  V.  Reed,  75  111.  125—1415. 
Card   V.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   50 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  39—1270. 
Cardot  v.  Barney,  63  N.  Y.  281—45. 
Carleton  v.  Lombard  Avres  &  Co.,  19 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    297—1721. 
Carleton   v.   Union   Trans.,    etc.,    Co., 

121  N.  Y.  Supp.  997—421. 
Carli  V.  Interstate  Consol.  St.  R.  Co. 

(R.  I.),  51  AtL  305—1215. 
Carlisle   v.    Central    of    Ga.    Ry.    Co. 

(Ala.),  62  So.  759—1700. 
Carlisle  v.   Missouri  Pac.  R.   Co.,   97 

Mo.   App.   571—166. 
Carlson  v.   Oceanic   Steam  Nav.   Co., 

109  N.  Y.  359—1294. 
Carlton  Produce  Co.  v.  Velasco,  etc., 

Ry.   Co.    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),   131    S. 

W.   1187—1907. 
Carmanty  v.  Mexican  Gulf  R.  Co.,  5 

La.  Ann.  70.3—1131. 
Carnahan  v.  Chesapeake  &  O.  Ry.  Co., 

145  Ky.  676—1383. 
Carnegie,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Sawver,   69 

Ilk  285—387. 
Carney    v.    Cincinnati    St.    R.    Co.,    8 

Ohio  S.  &  C.  P.  Dec.  587—975. 
Carpenter  v.  Baltimore  &  O.  R.  Co., 

6  Pen.  (Dek)   15—21,  308,  312,  336. 
Carpenter  v.   Baltimore  &   0.  R.   Co. 

(Dek),  64  Atk  252—560. 
Carpenter  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97 

N.  Y.  494—989,  1156,  1186,  1205. 
Carpenter  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  67  Minn. 

188—881. 


Carpenter  v.  Eastern  Transp.  Line,  67 

Barb.  570—56. 
Carpenter  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

124  N.  Y.  53—63,  66,  1296. 
Carpenter  v.  Trinity,  etc.,  R.  Co. (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  119  S.  W.  335—1178. 
Carpenter   v.   United    States   Express 

Co.,   120  Minn.  59—501,   1918. 
Carpue  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Q.  B. 

747—1479,   1501. 
Carr  v.  Eel  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Cak 

366—1237,  142,5,  1676. 
Carr   v.    Lancashire,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    7 

Exch.  707-^64. 
Carr    v.    Miller-Morris    Canal    Irrig., 

etc.,  Co.,  105  La.  239—111. 
Carr  v.  Schafer,  15  Colo.  48—153,  351. 
Carr  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  194  U.  S. 

427—441. 
Carrico  v.  West  Virginia  Cent.,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  39  W.  Va.  88—1501. 
Carrico  v.  West  Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

35  W.  Va.  389—1098,  1655,  1656. 
Carrizzo   v.   New   York,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

123  N.  Y.  Supp.   173—689. 
Carroll  v.  Boston  Elev.  Ry.  Co.,  200 

Mass.  527—1503. 
Carroll  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

82  Ga.  452—1564. 
Carroll  v.  International  Rap.  T.  Co., 

107  Mo.  653—1614,  1626. 
Carroll  y.   Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.,   88 

Mo.  239—1037,  1450,  1456. 
Carroll  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   1 

Duer  (N.  Y.)  584—1576,  1628. 
Carroll  v.   Southern  Express   Co.,   37 

S.  C.  452—236. 
Carroll   v.   Staten   Island   R.   Co.,   58 

N.  Y.  126—957,  991,  998,  1030,  1035, 

1080,   1119,  1137,  1211,  1220,   1599. 
Carruth  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  La. 

Ann.   1228—1581. 
Carson   v.   Harris,   4   Greene    (Iowa) 

516—748. 
Carson  Lumber  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  &  S. 

F.  R.  Co.,   198  Fed.  311—656,  714, 

722. 
Carstens  v.  Burleigh,  20  Wash.  283 — 

543. 
Carstens  Packing  Co.  v.  Southern  Pac. 

R.    Co.,    58    Wash.    239—887,    894, 

897. 
Carswell  v.  Macon,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   118 

Ga.    826—1064. 
Carter  v.  Boston  &  N.  St.  R.  Co.,  205 

Mass.  21 — 983,  1611. 


Ivi 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(Tlip   rof<r(>m'os   are   to   ilic   jiatjos.) 


Cartor   v.    Cl>ioa<;i),    otc,    1\.    Co.,    14(5 

Iowa,  201— 01 S. 
t'artor  v.  Coluiiil)ia.  etc.,  H.  Co.  1!)  S. 

C.  20— 147G,    1.'.45. 

Carter  v.  Graves,  17  Toiiii.   (!•  Yerg. ) 

446— 2S!1. 
Carter  v.   Howe  Machine  Co.,  61   Md. 

2!)0— 1184. 
Carter  v.  Kansas  Citv  Cable   R.  Co., 

42  Fed.  37—1475. 
Carter  v.  Kew  Orleans  &  N.  E.  R.  Co., 

143  Fed.  09—1081. 
Carter  v.  Tei-k.  4  Sneed    (Tenn.)   203 

—744. 
Carter  v.  Rockford  &  I.  Ry.  Co..  147 

Wis.  8G— 1002. 
Carter  v.  Towne,  98  Mass.  567 — 563. 
Carton   v.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    59 

Iowa,    148—449. 
Cartwright   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

52  Mich.  606—1233.  1666. 
Cartwright  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   85 

Hun    (N.   Y.)    517—354,   734,   747, 

748. 
Carv    V.    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    29 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  35—1350,  1351,1356, 

1361. 
Case    V.    Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    64 

Iowa,   762 — 1476. 
Case  V.  Cleveland,  etc..  R.  Co.,  11  Ind 

App.  517—481. 
Ca-se  V.  Delaware,  etc,  R.  Co..  191  Pa 

St.  450—1281. 
Case  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  E 

D.  Sm.    (N.  Y.)   .522—1376. 
Casey  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

78  N.  Y.  518—1587. 
Casey  v.  St.  Louis  S.  W.  Rv.  Co.  (Tex 

Civ.  App.)   83  S.  W.  20—798. 
Cash  V.  \\abash  R.  Co.,  81  Mo.  App 

709—785.  905. 
Cashill  V.  Wright,  6  El.  &  B.  891—6 
Cashman  v.   New  York,   etc.,   R.   Co. 

201  Mass.  35.5 — 1210. 
Casper  v.   Drv  Dock,  etc.,  R.  Co..  23 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)   451—1505. 
Casper  v.  Drv  Dock,  etc.,  R.  Co..  22 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)    156—1647. 
Casper  v.  New  Orleans  Ry.,  etc.,  Co., 

121  La.  603—1484. 
Cass  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  Mass. 

45.T — 411. 
Cassady   v.    Old    Colonv    St.    Ry.   Co. 

(Mass.),  68.  N.  E.   10—1477,   1692. 


Cassady  v.  Texas  &.    l\   \\y.  Co.,   131 

La.   264 — 1606. 
Cassidy  v.  Angel.   12  R.  1.  449—1544. 

1546. 
Cassilay'v.  Young,  4  B.  Mon.    (Ky. ) 

265—259. 
Cassio  V.  Brooklyn  H.  R.  Co.,  50  A.j)p. 

Div.  (N.  Y.)  617—1619. 
Castclano  v.  Cliicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149 

111.  App.  250—1480. 
Caswell  V.   Boston,   etc.,  R.   Corp.,  98 

Mass.    194—1083,    1601. 
Caterhani   R.  Co.  v.  London,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  87  E.  C.  L.  410—150. 
Cathey  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  140 

Mo.  App.  134—1074,  1412. 
Catlin   V.   Adirondack   Co.,   81   N.   Y. 

639—^289. 
Caton  V.   Runiney,  13  Wend.    (N.  Y.) 

387—56. 
Cau   V.   Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    113    Fed. 

91—469. 
Cavallaro  v.  Texas,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   110 

Cal.  348—232,  339,  384. 
Cavenv   v.  Neely,  43   S.   C.   70—1114. 

1131. 
Cave  V.   Seaboard  Air  L.   R.   Co.    (S. 

C),  77  S.  E.  1017—1180. 
Cawfield  v.  Asheville  St.  R.   Co.,   Ill 

N.  C.  .597—1245. 
Cayo  V.  Poole's  Assignee,  108  Ky.  124 

—73,  631,  646. 
Cayuga  Countv  Nat.  Bank  v.  Daniels. 

47  N.  Y.  631—213. 
Caywood    v.    Seattle   Electric    Co.,    50 

Wash.  566—1669. 
Cedar  Rapids  &  I.  C.  Ry.  &  L.  Co.  v. 

Chicago   Co.,    145   low'a,   528 — 1871. 
Central  Coal  &  Coke  Co.  v.  Hartman, 

111   Fed.  0()— 623. 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brvant,  73  Ga. 

722—454,  815. 
Central,   etc..   R.   Co.  v.  Chicago  Por- 
trait Co.,  122  Ga.  11—649. 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Georgia  Fruit. 

etc.,   Exch.,  91    Ga.   389—369. 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miles,  88  Ala. 

261—1508. 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  68  Tex. 

40— lis.  132,  154. 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Motes,  117  Ga. 

023—1076,  1077,  1151,   1170. 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Price,  106  Ga. 

170—1175. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are  to   the   pages.) 


Ivii 


Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  80  Ga. 

526—1555. 
Central  Iron   Works  v.  Pennsylvania 

R.  Co.,  2  Dauph.  Co.  Rep.  308—156. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ey.  Co.  v.  A.  C.  Douw 

&  Co.,  6  Ga.  App.  858—1908. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  A  F.  Mer- 
rill &  Co.,   153  Ala.  277—384,  395, 

421. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Bagley,  173 

Ala.   611—986,    1430,    1438. 
Central    of    Ga.    Rv.    Co.    v.    Bagley 

(Ala.),  55  So.  894—1422. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Bashinski, 

8  Ga.  App.  116—296. 
General  of  Ga.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Bird.  10  Ga. 

App.  423—1731 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Brown,  165 

Ala.    493—493,    1157. 
Central  of  Georgia  Rv.  Co.  v.  Brown, 

113  Ga.  414— 1150,"^1166. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Burton,  165 

Ala.  425—196,  423. 
General  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Butler  Mar- 
ble &  Granite  Co.,  8  Ga.  App.  243 

— 423,  512. 
General  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Butler  Mar- 
ble &  Granite  Works,  8  Ga.  App.  1 

—168,  174,  475. 
Central   of   Ga.   Ry.   Co.   v.   Carleton, 

163    Ala.    62—1197,    1663. 
Central    of    Ga,    Ry.    Co.    v.    Chicago 

Varnish    Co.,    169    Ala.    287—1924. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Citv  Milk 

Co.,  128  Ga.  84i— 475. 
Central    of    Ga.    Ry.    Co.    v.    Cook    & 

Lockett,  4  Ga.  App.  698—129,  154. 
Central  of  Georgia  Ry.  Co.  v.  Felton, 

110  Ga.  597—541. 
Central  of  Ga.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Geopp.   153 

Ala.  408—1496. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Glascock  & 

Warfield,   117   Ga.  938—871. 
Central  of  n<>orgia  Rv.   Co.   v.   Hall, 

124  Ga.  322—42,  .308,  317,  784. 
Centra]  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  James,   117 

Ga.  832—852.  ' 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Jon<'s,   150 

Ala.  379-1357!   1381. 
Central  of  Ga.  Rv.  Co.  v.  ,Jon<'>,  7  Ga. 

App.  16.5—288! 
Central   of  Ga.   Ry.  Co.   v.   Lippman, 

110  Ga.  66.5— .306,  427,   1215,  1221, 

1458. 
CcTitral  of  Ga.  R.  Co.  v.  Madden,  135 

Ga.  205—1271. 


Central   of  Ga.  R.   Co.   v.  McKinney, 

118  Ga.  535—1572. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Motes,  117 

Ga.  923—1076,   1077,  1151,   1170. 
Central   of   Ga.    Ry.    Co.   v.   Murphy, 

116   Ga.   683,   196   U.   S.   194—297, 

492. 
Central   of  Ga.   Ry.   Co.  v.  Patterson 

(Ala.  App.),  60  So.  465—664,  1811. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Price,   106 

Ga.  176—961,  1006. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ricks,  109 

Ga.   339—306. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Rogers,  111 

Ga.  865—852. 
Central   of   Ga.   Ry.   Co.   v.   Shdlnut, 

131   Ga.  404—284. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Sigma  Lum- 

ter    Co.,    170    Ala.    627—142,    168, 

309. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.   Sims,   109 

Ala.  29-5—1886,  1918,  1924,  1925. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Stoirs,  1G9 

Ala.  361—959,  1005. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  C<).  v.  Turner,  143 

Ala.  142—663. 
Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Willingham 

&  Sons.  8  Ga.  App.  817—658,  682. 
Central  Pass  R.  Co.  v.  Kuhn.  86  Kv. 

578—1475,   1494,   1512. 
Central  Pass  R.  Co.  v.  Rose.   15  Kv. 

L.  R.  209—1615. 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Brown.  78  Md.  394 

-1183. 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Brinson.  64  Ga.  475 

—1518. 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Combs,  70  Ga.  533 

—1452,  1707. 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Cooper,  95  Ga.  406 

—277. 
Central    R.   Co.   v.   Dwight  Mfg.   Co., 

75  Ga.  609—743. 
Central    R.    Co.    v.    Freeman,    75    Ga. 

331—1080,   1211,   1500. 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Glass,  60  Ga.  441— 

1258. 
Central   R.   Co.   v.   Green,    SO    Pa.    St. 

421—1143. 
Central    R.    Co.   v.   llassclkus,   91    Ga. 

as2— 570.  574. 
Central   R.   Co.   v.   Henderson.   60  Ga. 

71.'^- 1013,   1064. 
Central  R.  Co.  v.   MacCartnev,  68  N". 

J.  L.  165—660,  671. 
Central    R.    Co.    v.    Mackcy,    ]f>3    III. 

A/pp.  1.5—1406. 


Iviii 


TABLE  OL^  CASES. 
(The  icfereucea  are  to  the  pages.) 


Central    R.    Co.   v.    Poiicuck,    09    Md. 

257—111)8. 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Pickett,  87  Ga.  734 

—483,  484,  785. 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Rogers,  6G  Ga.  251 

—585,  777. 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Sanders,  73  Ga.  513 

—1500. 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  74  Md.  212 

—1215,   1237,   15G7. 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Strickland,  90  Ga. 

5G2— IOCS,   1071,   1712. 
Central  R.   Co.  v.  Thompson,  76  Ga. 

770—1212,   1235. 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Van  Horn,  38  N.  J. 

L.    133—1226,   1673,   1567. 
Central   R.  Co    v.  Whitehead,  74  Ga. 

441—997,    1245. 
Central   R.   Co.   v.   Wiegand,   79   Fed. 

991—1330,   1351,   1358. 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Wolff,  74  Ga.  664— 

1558. 
Central   R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Anderson,  58 

Ga.  393—380,  519,  551. 
Central  R.,  ete.,  Co.  v.  Avant,  80  Ga. 

195—195,  766. 
Central  R.,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Bayer,  91 

Ga.  115—748,  777. 
Central    R.,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Bridger,    94 

Ga.  471—758. 
Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Georgia  Fruit 

Exch.,  91  Ga.  389—734.  757,  758. 
Central  R.,   etc.,   Co.  v.   Lampley,   76 

Ala.  357—20,  84,  277,  283. 
Central   R.,   etc.,    Co.   v.   Latcher,   69 

Ala.    106—1678. 
Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Miles,  88  Ala. 

256—1236,    1598,   1676.   1677.   1678. 
Central  A.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Perry,  58  Ga. 

461—973,    989,    1212,    1240,    1G07, 

1624,   1220. 
Central    R.,    etc.,    Co.   v.    Sawyer,    78 

Ga.  784—651. 
Central  R.  Co.  v.  Skellie,  86  Ga.  686 

—584.  617.  757. 
Central  R..  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  80  Ga. 

526—1556. 
Central    R.,    etc.,    Co.   v.    Smitha,    85 

Ala.  47—454.  873,  878. 
Central    Stock    Yards    Co.    v.    Louis- 
ville,  etc.,   R.    Co.,    118    Fed.    113— 

849,  1823. 
Central  Texas,  etc..  Rv.  Co.  v.  Hollo- 

^vnx   (Tox.),  54  S.  W.  419—1248. 
Central   Tpxas,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.    Fmith 

C^'^x.  Civ.  App.),  73   S.  W.   537— 

1267. 


Central  Trust  Co.  v.  East  Tennessee, 

etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  70  Fed.  7G4— 289,  396. 
Central  Trust  Co.   v.   Pittsburg,   etc., 

R.  Co.,  52  Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    195 

— 18G6. 
Central   Trust  Co.  v.   Savannali,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  G9  F'e,d.  683—616. 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 

Co.    (Mo.),  31  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

103—738. 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  39  Fed.  417—1294,  1298,  1301. 
Central  Trust  R.  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  31  Fed.  247—757,  1360. 
Central    Union   Teleph.   Co.   v.   Brad- 
bury, 106  Ind.  1—87,  95. 
Central   Union   Toleph.   Co.   v.   State, 

123  Ind.  113—95. 
Central  Vermont  R.  Co.  v.  Bateman, 

26  U.  S.  App.  584 — 1114. 
Central  Vermont  R.  Co.  v.  Soper,  59 

Fod.  879—477,  482. 
Certain  Logs  of  Mahogany,  Fed.  Cas. 

No.  2,559   (2  Sumn.  589),  648—676. 
ChaflFee  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.,  104 

Mass.    108—1242,    1598,    1691. 
Chaffee  v.  Consol.  Ry.  Co.,  196  Mass. 

484—1496. 
Chaffee  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59 

Miss.   182—214. 
Chaffee  v.   Old  Colony  R.  Co.,   17   R. 

I.  658—1613. 
Chalk   V.    Charlotte,   etc.,   R,    Co.,   85 

N.  C.  42.3—202,  255,  393,  394. 
Chamberlain    v.    Chandler,    3    Mason 

(U.  S.),  242—1176. 
Chamberlain   v.   Lake   Shore,  etc.,   R. 

Co.    (Mich.),  68  N.   W.  423—1395. 
Chambirlain    v.    Milwaukee,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  7  Wis.  425—1477. 
Chamberlain  v.  Pierson,  87  Fod.  420 

—1053. 
Chamberlain   v.   Pullman   Palace  Car 

Co.,  55  ^To.  Ar^v-  474—64. 
Chamberlain  v.  Westprn  Transp.  Co., 

44  N.  Y.   305—1990. 
Chamberlain  v.  Western  Transp.   Co., 

45  Barb.    (N.  Y.)    218-1306. 
Chamber  of  Commerce  v.  Great  Nor- 
thern R.   Co.,  5  Int.   Com.  C.  Rep. 
71—1794. 

Chambprs  v.  Keeper-Bensnu  Hotel 
Co.,  154  Mo.  App.  249—977. 

Cliampnne  v.  La  Crose  City  R.  Co., 
121   Wis.  554— IGSl. 

Champion  v.  Ames,  188  U.  S.  321 — 
1733,  1735. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


lus 


Chandla  v.  St.  Louis  Tr.  Co.,  213  Mo. 

244 — 149(5. 
Chandler    v.    Belden,    18    Johns.     (N. 

Y.)    157—648,  649. 
Chandler  v.  Fulton,  10  Tex.  24—224, 
Chandler    v.    Sprague,    38    Am.    D<3C. 

410,  229. 
Chapin    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    79 

Iowa,   582—798,  903,  927. 
Chapman    v.    Atlantic    Refining    Co., 

108  N.  Y.  638—562. 
Chapman    v.    Capital    Tract.    Co.,    37 

App.  D.  C.  479—1658. 
Chapman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

Wis.  295—583,  589. 
Chapman  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  55  N.  Y.  579 

—1133. 
Chapman  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  42 

L.  T.  N.  S.  252,  5  Q.  B.  Div.  278, 

28  W.  R.  566—386,  392,  405,  566. 
Chapman   v.   New   Haven   R.   Co.,    19 

N.  Y,  341—1269. 
Chapman  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

21   La.  Ann.  224—570. 
Chapman    v.    Railroad    Co.,    7    Phila. 

(Pa.)    204—273. 
Chapman  &  Dewey  Land  Co.  v.  Jones- 

boro,    etc.,   R.   Co.,    97   Ark.   300— 

721. 
Charbonneau    v.    Nassau    Electric    R. 

Co.,   123  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    531— 

1075. 
Charlebois  v.  Gogebie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91 

Mich.  59 — 549. 
Charles  H.  Lilly  Co.  v.  Northern  Pac. 

Ry.   Co.,   64   Wash.   589—716. 
Charles    Schlesinger   &    Sons   v.   New 

York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  N.  Y.  Supp. 

372—206. 
Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  SO 

Ga.  522—523. 
Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wooten,  87 

Ga.  203—316. 
Charlotte    Trouper    Co.    v.    Seaboard 

Air  Line  Ry.,  139  N.  C.  382—1357. 
Cliarnock  v.  Texas,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   113 

Fed.  92—469. 
Chase  v.  Alliance  Ins.   Co.,  91   Mass. 

(9  Allen)   311—653. 
Chase   V.   Jamestown    St.    R.    Co.,    00 

Hun   (N.  Y.),  582—1124. 
Chase  v.  New  York  Ctemt.  R.  Co.,  26 

N.   Y.   52.3-1.394. 
Cha.gp  v.  Washington  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  12 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    595—546. 


Chase  v.  Westmore,  5  M.  &  S.  180— 

648. 
Chattanooga  Elec.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Roddy, 

105  Tenn.  666—1002,   1693. 
Chattanooga,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Huggins, 

89  Ga.  494—976,  1212. 
Chattanooga,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Li,ddle, 

85  Ga.  482—1723,  724. 
Chattanooga,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Lyon, 

89  Ga.  16—1229. 
Chattanooga    R.    T.    Co.    v.    Venable, 

105  Tenn.  460—1065. 
Chattanooga     Southern     R.     Co.     v. 

Thompson,   133   Ga.   127—139,   596. 
Chattock  V.   Bellamy,  64  L.  J.  Q.  B. 

(N.   S.)    250—83. 
Check  V,  Little  Miami  R.  Co.,  2  Disn. 

(Ohio)    37—1364. 
Checklev  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  257 

111.  491—1472. 
Cheesman  v.  Exall,  6  Exch.  341—209. 
Chelsea   Jute   Mills   v.   Britain   S.   S. 

Co.,  123  Fed.  176—205. 
Cheney    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    11 

Mete.    (Mass.),   121—1015,   1070. 
Cherokee,  etc.,  Coal  Co.  v.  Dixon,  55 

Kan.  70—1562. 
Cherokee    Packet    Co.    v.    Hilson,    95 

Tenn.  1—1282. 
Cherry  v.  Kansas  City,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

52  Mo.  App.  499—1016,   1425, 
Cherry  v,  Kansas   Cltv,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

1  Mo.  Api-.  Rep.  253—754. 
Che.sapeake  &  O.  R.   Co.  v.  Buckman 

(Va.),  76  S.  E.  278—887, 
Chesapeake   &    0.   R.   Co,   v,   Clowes, 

93  Va.   189—1661. 
Chesapeake  &  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Crank,  32 

Ry.   Law  Rep.   1202—1404. 
Chesapeake  &   0.   R.   Co.   v.   Dobbins, 

23  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1588—667. 
Chesapeake  &  0.  R.  Co.  v.  Dodge,  23 

Ky.  L.  R.  1959—549,  1460. 
Chesapeake    &    O.    Rv.    Co.    v.    Fran- 

ci.sco,   149   Ky.   307—1179. 
Chesapeake  &  0.  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,   136 

Ky.   379—108,   120,   1295, 
Chesapeake  &   O.  R.  Co.  v.  King,  99 

Fed.   251—997,    1011, 
Chesapeake  &  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Magowan, 

147   Ky.   422—786,  863. 
Chesapeake  &   0.   R.   Co.   v,   Morgan, 

129  Ky.  731—1106. 
Chesapeake   &    0.   R.   Cb.   v,   Morton, 

143  Ky.  201—723. 


TABLE  UF  CASES. 
(Tlie   refereuces   are   to   the   pages.) 


Chesapeake    &    0.    K.    Co.     v.     Paris 

Adm'r,   111   Va.  41— loOD. 
Chetiapeako  &  0.  Ry.   ^o.   v.   Tatton, 

23  App.  D.  C.   113— 104'J,    rJTli. 
Chesapeake  &  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Robinette, 

32  Ky.  L.  R.  1077—1390,  1401. 
Chesapeake  &  0.  R.  Co.  v.  Buckinan 

(Va.),  7G  S.  E.  278—030. 
Ohesapouke  &  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Saulsberry, 

126  Kv.  17!)— 24!),  G07. 
Chesape;{ke   &   O.   Hx.   Co.   v.   Selsor, 

142  Ky.   103—1140. 
Chesapeake  &  0.  R.   Co.  v.   Standard 

Lumber  Co.,  174  Fed.  107—1811. 
Chesiipeake  &  0.  R.  Co.  v.  Steele,  84 

Fed.  93—1543. 
Chesapeake  &  O.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Wills,  111 

Va.  32—1568. 
Chosaptake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  American 

Exchange    Bank,    92    Va.    495—495, 

79S,  816,  820,  851. 
Chi^apeake,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  Anderson, 

93  Va.  650—1425. 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Board,  25 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  1118—549. 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dodge,  23 

Ky.  L.  Rep.    15)59—549,    1460. 
Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Jordan, 

25   Ky.  Law   Rep.   574—1212. 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Patton,  23 

App.  D.  C.  113—1049,  1276. 
Che-sapeaka,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Radbourne, 

52  III.  App.  203—570,  746,  749. 
Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Reeves 

(Ky.),  11  S.  W.  464—1563. 
Chesapeake,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Wells,   85 

Tenn.   613—1070,    1143. 
Chesapeake,   etc.,  Teleph.  Co.   v.  Bal- 
timore, eftc.,  Tel.  Co.,  66  Md.  399— 

95. 
Chesley  v.  Mississippi  &  R.  R.  Boom 

Co.,  39  Minn.  83—86. 
Chesley   v.   St.   Clair,   1   N.   H.    189— 

531. 
Chester  Nat.   Bank   v.   Atlantic,   etc.. 

Air  Line  R.  Co.,  25  S.  C.  216—225, 

227. 
Chevalier    v.   Patton,    10   Tex.    344— 

551. 
Chevallier   v.  Straham,  2  Tex.    115 — 

20,  25,  27,  71,  73,  310,  458. 
Cheviot  V.  Brooks,  1  Johns.    (N.  Y.) 

369—324. 
Chewnin^  v.  Ensley  R.  Co.,   100  Ala. 

493—1562,  1602. 


Clioyne  v.  Van  liiunt  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

97  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)    56—1199. 
Cliicagu  &.  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Addizoat,   17 
111.   App.    (17    Bradw.)    632—1356. 
Chicago   &,  A.  R.   Co.   v.   Buckmaster, 

74  111.  App.  575—200. 
Chicago  &   A.    R.   Co.   v.   Carlock,   (J9 

111.  App.   498—686. 
Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Cary,  115  III. 

1L5— 1518. 
Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Dnmser,   161 

111.   190—1216. 
Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Flaherty,  9t) 

111.  App.  563—1164. 
Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Gates,  61  111. 

App.  211—1664. 
Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  69  111. 

App.  497—686. 
Chicago    &    A.    R.    Co.    v.    Interstate 

Commerce    Commission,     173     Fed. 

930—1821,    1855. 
Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Kansas  City 

Suburban  Belt  R.  Co.,  78  Mo.  App. 

245—292,  531. 
Chicago   &   A.   R.   Co.   v.   Kirby,   22.1 

U.  S.  155—839,  1808. 
Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Noble,  132  III. 

App.  400—1668. 
Chicago  &  A.  R.   Co.  v.   Suffern,   129 

111.  274—117. 
Chicago   &  A.   R.   Co.   v.    Suffern,   27 

111.  App.  4G4— 117. 
Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

156  Fed.  558—1816. 
Chicago   &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Walker,  217 

111.  605—973,   1281. 
Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Winters,  175 

111.  293—961,  1007,  1036. 
Chicago  &   E.   I.   R.   Co.   v.   Igo,   130 

111.  App.  373—862. 
Chicago   &   N.   W.   Ry.   Co.  v.   Smith, 

81  111.  App.  364—921. 
Chicago  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Stanbro. 

87  111.  195—245,  246. 
Chicago  &  N.   W.   Ry.   Co.  v.   Weeks, 

98   111.   App.  518—1023. 
Chicago,  B.  &  Q.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Williams, 

200  Fed.  207—1036,  1467. 
Chicago  City  R.  Co.  v.  Burrell,  70  111. 

App.   60—1124. 
Chicago  City  Ry.  Co.  v.  Carroll,   102 

111.   App.  ,202—15,34. 
Chicago  City  R.  Co.  v.  Catlin,  70  IlL 

App.  97—1476. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
^Tlie   references  are  to   the   pages.) 


1X1 


Chicago  Citv  Ry.  Co.  v.  Considine,  50 

111.  App.  471—1180. 
Chicago   City  Ry.  Co.  v.  Cooper,   128 

111.  App.   528—1169. 
Chicago  Citv  Rv-  Co.  v.  Delcourt,  35 

111.  App.  430—1614. 
Chicago  Citv  Ry.  Co.  v.  Engel,  35  111. 

App.  490—1212,   1494. 
Chicago  City  Ry.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  5  111. 

App.  242—1595. 
Chicago  City  R.  Co.  v.  Mead.  206  111. 

174—1475. 
Chicago  City  Ry.  Co.  v.  Morse,  98  111. 

App.   602—1215,    1222,   ±534. 
Chicago  City  Ry.  Co.  v.  Mumford,  97 

111.^560-1237. 
Chicago  City  R.  Co.  v.  Rood,  163  111. 

477—1476.    1477. 
Chicago   Citv   Rv.   Co.   v.   Rural,    127 

111.  App.  652—1485. 
Chicago  Citv  Ry.  Co.  v.  Schaefer,  121 

111.  App.  "334-1632. 
Chicago   City   R.   Co.  v.   Schuler,   111 

111.   App.   470—548. 
Chicago  City  R.  Co.  v.  Wilcox   (111.), 

24  N.  E.  419—1589,   1587. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Abels,  60  Miss. 

1017—33,  456,  495,  906. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Addizoat,   17 

111.  App.  632—1531. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Albert  Pfeifer 

&  Bro.,  90  Ark.  524—294. 
Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Ames,  40  111. 

249—587,  589. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Arnol,    144 

111.    261—1212,    1226,    1237,    1265, 

1673. 
Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.    v.   Bannerman, 

15  111.  App.  100—1029. 
Chicago,   etc..    R.   Co.   v.   Barrett,    16 

111.  App.  17—998,  1147,  1148,  1150. 
Chicago,    etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Baugh,    175 

Ind.  419—139,  801. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bay  Shore  L. 

Co.,  140  Mo.  App.  52—681. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Beatty.    27 

Okl.  844—557. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Becker,  76  111. 

25—1580. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Benjamin,  63 

HI.  283—569. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bills,  104  Ind. 

1.3—986,  1227,  1433. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Binsley,   69 

Til.  630—204.  381.  .393.  407. 


Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Boger,   1   111. 

App.  472—1428,  1445. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Boggs.    101 

Ind.  522—1510. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bosworth,  179 

U.  S.  442— 123. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boyce,  73  HI. 

510—1293,   1298,   1350,  1355. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Bozarth,   91 

111.  App.  68—479,  480. 
Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co.   v.  Brandon,  77 

Kan.   612—1504. 
Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Brisbane,  24 

111.  App.  463—1394. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Broe,  16  Okla. 

25—598. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bryan,  90  111. 

App.   126—1135,   1148,   1181. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.   Bryant,   65 

Fed.  969—988,   1064. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Burlington. 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Fed.  481—122,  124, 

733. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Calumet  Stock 

Farm,    194   111.  9—890. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Calumet  Stock 

Farm,  96  111.  App.  337—896. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Carey,    115 

111. "115—905. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carpenter,  5& 

Fed.   451—1036. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carroll,  5  111. 

App.  201—948,  1144,  1638. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Carroll,    56 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  359—871. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Casazza,   83 

111.   App.   421—1425,    1431,    1433. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Casey,   9  111. 

App.  632-988,  1016,  1042. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    C.    C.    MiH 

Elev.,    etc..    Co.    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

87  S.  W.   753—599. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Champion 

(Ind.),  32  N.  E.  874—1556. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chancellor,  60 

111.  App.  525—989. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chapman,  133 

111.  96—492,  1460. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  Rep.  721—1852. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chisholm,  70 

111.  584—985,  1027,  1712,  1729. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Church,    12 

111.  App.  17—758. 
Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    daunts,   99 

Ark.   248—1668. 


Ixii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  reforonces  are  to  the  pages.) 


Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Clayton,   78 

111.  til6— l;l-15,  1347. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clements  (Tox. 

Civ.    App.),    115    S.    W.    (;G4— 795, 

1926. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Collins,  56  111. 

212 1292. 

Chicago,    etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Conklin,   32 

Kan.  55—1301,  1302,  1306,  1330. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Conley,  6  Ind. 

App.  9—1712. 
Chicago,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Conway,   34 

Okl.  356— SS3. 
Chicago,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Clough,   134 

111.  586- 15S0. 
Chicaoo.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coss,  73  111. 

394—1232. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Cotton,    87 

Ark.  339—922. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Crenshaw 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  126  S.  W.  602— 

800. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Curtis,    51 

Neb.  442—123. 
Chicaso,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dane,  43  N. 

Y.  240—146. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  159  111. 

53—403,  518. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  54  111. 

App.  130—151. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dewey,  26  111. 

255—1002. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dickinson,  74 

111.^249—509,  582,  596. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Dingman,   1 

111.  App.   164—1665,   1666. 
Chicasro,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dodson  &  Wil- 
liams, 25  Okl.  822—724. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.   v.  Dorsey   Fuel 

Co.,  112  111.  App.  382—627,  6S9. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Drake,  33  111. 

App.   114—1241,  1246. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Elliott,    55 

Fed.   949—1608. 
Chicago,  etc..   R.  Co.  v.  Erickson,  91 

111.   613—788. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fahey,  52  111. 

81—1302,  1363. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Fairelough, 

51  111.  106-199. 
Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Feintuch,  191 

Fed.  482—1838,  1887. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Felton,    125 

111.  458—1533,  1583. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Field,  7  Ind. 

App.  172—971,  987. 


Cliicaco.   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Filmore,   57 

111. "265-1563. 
Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    Fisher,    141 

111.  614—1638,  1639. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Fisher,    06 

111.   152—1256. 
Cliicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Fisher,    31 

111.  App.   36—1144,  1558. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Fisher,    49 

Kan.  400—1212. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flagg,  43  III. 

364—128,    1145,    1394,    1423,    142  J, 

1711,  1712,  1719. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flexman,  103 

111.   546—1012,   1131,   1170,    1261. 
Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Flexman,   9 

111.  App.  250—1150. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Frazer,    55 

Kan.  582-1008,   1039. 
Chicago,   etc.,    R.    co.    v.    Frye-Bruhn 

Co.,  184  Fed.  15—941. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Fuller,    17 

Wall.   (U.  S.)   500—1758. 
Ch'cago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    George,    19 

III.  510—1212. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Goldman,  46 

111.  App.  625—747. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Graham,    3 

Ind.    App.    28—1068,     1071,     1394, 

1416. 
Chicago   City  Ry.  Co.  v.  Greinke,   13 

111.  App.   77—1496. 
Chicago,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gretzner,  46 

111.  74—1212. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Griffin,  68  111. 

499—1146,   1175,   1407,   1705.   1713. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Gustin,    35 

Neb.  86—740. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Hale,  2   111. 

App.  150—624. 
Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  69  111. 

App.  497—686. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Halsell,    36 

Tex,  Civ.  App.  522—858,  871. 
Chieafjo,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Hambel 

(Neb.),  89  N.  W.  043—1465. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Harmon,   17 

111. "App.  640—463,  516. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Harmon,   12 

111.  App.  54—33,  427,  433,  493,  822, 

824.  800. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harrison,  100 

Til.  App.  211—1010,  1012. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hawk,  42  III. 

App.  322—463. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references  are   to  the   pages.) 


Ixiii 


Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Hazzard,  28 

111.    373—1106,    1264, 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Henderson 
(Tex.    Civ.   App.),   73    S.   W.   36— 
166. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Herring,   57 

111.  59—1713. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Hoffman,  82 

111.  App.  453—1040. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holdridge,  118 

Ind.  281—1711,  1727. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hostetter,  171 

Ind.   465—792,   1039. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoyt,  37  HI. 

App.  64—404. 
Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co,   v.   Iowa,  94  U. 

S.  155—113,  1753,  1761. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  James,  81  Kan. 

23 — 480. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v,  Jenkins,   103 

111.^599—381,   626,   701, 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co,  v,  Jennings,  190 

HI,  478—1018. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Johnson,   36 

III,   App.   564—1559. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v,   Jones    (Tex, 

Civ.    App.),    118    S.    W,    759—599, 

867, 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Interstate 

Commerce     Commission,     171     Fed, 

680-1803, 
Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Kapp    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  117  S.  W.  904—869. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R,   Co.   v.   Kapp    (Tex, 

Civ.  App.),  83  S.  W,  233—909. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Katzenbach, 

118  Ind.   174—479,  517,  584. 
Chicago,    etc.,   Ry.    Co,   v.   Kehn,    121 

Minn.  34.3—242, 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Kendall,   72 

111.  App.   105—196,  380. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Koehler,   47 

HI.    .App.    147—1162,    1613. 
Chica'^o,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Lagerkrans 

(Neb  ),  91  N.  W.  385-1691, 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lampman,  18 

Wyo.  106—1667,  1682. 
Chicnfro.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Landauer,  36 

Nrb.   642—1241,   1676. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Latta,   226 

V    S.  519—500.  502,  1915. 
Chicnio.   ntc,  R.  Co.  v,  Lee,  92   Fed, 

P,]fi — nn2. 
Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co.   v.   Lee,   68   111. 

576—1270. 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lena  Lumber 

Co.,  99  Ark,  105—721, 
Chicago,  etc,  R.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  145  111. 

67—1082,  1083,  1117,  1212,  1270. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  48  111. 

App.  274—1555. 
Chicago,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.  v.   Lloyd,    129 

111,  App.  156—1682. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Lowell,    151 

U,  S,  209—1573,  1666,  1689. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mann,  78  Neb. 

541—1059,  1287,  1469. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Manning,  23 

Neb.  552—314,  338,  363. 
Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Martelle 

(Neb.),  91  N,  W.  364—1678, 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v,  McAra,  52  111, 

296—1104,  1270. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLallen,  84 

111.    109—1069. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Meech,  59  111. 

App.  69—1717,  1728. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mehlsack,  131 

111.  61—1016. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v,  Mehlsack,  44 

111,  App.  124—1099. 
Chicago,    etc.,   R,   Co,   v,   Merrill,   48 

111.  425—262, 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Michie,    83 

111.  427—988,  1042,  1U59. 
Chicago,  etc,  R,  Co.  v.  Miles,  92  Ark. 

573—601,  842,  861,  919,  1924, 
Chicago,  etc.,  R,  Co.  v.  Mill  Elevator, 

etc.,  Co.  yTex.  Civ.  App,),  87  S,  W. 

753—623, 
Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Miller,   226 

U,  S.  513,  519—500,  1915. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  85  S.  W,  286—806,  882, 

887,   896. 
Chicago,  etc,  R.  Co.  v.  Mock,  88  IlL 

87—1477,  1533. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v,  Mnntfort,   60 

HI.   175—455,  463,  743,  766,  769, 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Moran,    129 

111.  App.  38—1022. 
Chicago,   etc,   R.   Co,  v,  Moran,   117 

111.   App.   42—1019. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.   Morris,    16 

Wyo.   308—831,  839,  855,  870.  880. 
Chicasro,  etc,  R.  Co.  v.  Moss,  60  Miss. 

100.3—456,  495,  552,  576.  577.  579. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Ncusch,    99 

Ark.  568—294,  607, 


Ixiv 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the   pages.) 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Newburn,  27 

Okl.  9—1417. 
Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Newhouse  Mill, 

etc.,  Co.,  00  Ark.  452—622. 
Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.   v.    New    York, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Fed.  516—733. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Northern  Line 
Packet  Co.,  70   111.  217—217,   748, 
772. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Northwestern 
Union  Packet  Co.,  38  Iowa,  377 — 
62G.   643. 
Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   OBrien.    132 

Fed.  593—1053. 
Chicago,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Olsen,  7  Ind.  App. 

698—1445. 
Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co,  v.  Osborne,  52 
Fed!    912—729,    1759,    1775,    1790, 
1797.  1833. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Owen,  21  111. 

App.  339—927. 
Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Parks,  18  111. 
460—1069,   1394,   1423,   1429,   1721. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Peacock,  48 

111.  253—1016. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania 

R.   Co.,   1   Int.  Com.   C.  Rep.   86,   1 

Int.  Com.  R.  357—729,  1824,   1825. 

Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   People,    105 

111.  657—1230. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  67  111. 

11—159. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  56  111. 

365—743. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pfeifer  &  Bro., 

90    Ark.    524—607. 

Cbicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pillsbury,  123 

111.  9— 1131,  1143,  1147,  1187,  1212. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Planters  Gin 

&   Oil   Co.,   88   Ark.   77—349,   546, 

608.  621. 

Chicago,    etc..   R.    Co.   v.   Pollock,    16 

Wyo.  321—801,  834. 
Chica<T0.  etc..  R.   Co.  v.  Pondrom,  51 

m.l^SS— 1106,  1656. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Powers,    73 

Neb.  816—170,  828. 
Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Pratt,  13  111. 

App.  477—849. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Provine,   61 

Miss.  268—569. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Randolph,  53 

111.  510—1145,  1227,  1255. 
Chica£ro.  etc..  Rv.  Co.  v.  Reyman,  73 
N.  T:.  587-566. 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rielly,  40  111. 

App.  416—1071,  1572. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Roberts,   40 

111.  503—1429. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Roger,   1   111. 

App.  472—1429. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.    Sattlcr,   64 
Neb.  636,  90  N.  W.  649—960,  961, 
1005,  1006,  1013,  1672. 
Chicago,   etc..   R.    Co.   v.   Sawyer,   69 

111.  285—26,  407. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scates,  90  111. 

586—1614. 
Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Schuldt 
(Neb.)    92    N.    W.    162—470,    852, 
873 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scott,  42  111. 

132—380,  410. 
Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Scott   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  156  S.  W.  294—442. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scurr,  59  Miss. 

456—1213,  1702,  1719,  1723. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Sears    (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),   130  S.  W.  1019—1161. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shea,  66  111. 

471—26,  36,  534. 
Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Simon,    160 

111.  648—433. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Simon,  57  111. 

App.  502—766. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Simms,  18  111. 

App.  68—345,  481. 
Chicago,   etc..   R.  Co.  v.   Simpson,   87 

Ark.  335—1109. 
Chicago,   etc..   R.   Co.  v.   Slattery,   76 

Neb.  721—814. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Slaughter,  84 

Ark.  423—924. 
Chicago,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   S.   Marshall 
Bulley  &  Son   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  140 
S.  W.  480—378,  409,  414. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.     Smith,    46 

Mich.  504—1533. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Spears,    31 

Okl.  469—885. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spirk,  51  Neb. 

167—1448. 
Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Stanbro,   87 

111.   195—596,  613. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Stepp,    164 

Fed.   785—954. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stone,  34  Okla. 

364—967,  1274,  1280. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rtratton,  111 
Til.    App.    142—1415.    1425. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Ixv 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stuar,  53  Neb. 

95—1345. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  19 

III.  578—41,  43,  108,   110,  523. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thrapp,  5  HI. 

App.  502—135,  350,  60.S. 
Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Thurlow,  178 

Fed.  894—1000,   1549. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Tracey,    109 

111.  App.  563—998,  1010. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.    v.   Trotter,   61 

Miss..  417—1533. 
Chicago,    etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Trotter,    GO 

Miss.  442—1477,  1510. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Troyer,    70 

Neb.  287—1037,  1038. 
Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

219  U.   S.  486—1834. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

209    U.    S.    90—1941,    1943,    1954, 

1961,   1974,   1978. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

195  Fed.  241—1985. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

162  Fed.  835—1942,  1951,  1968. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

157  Fed.  830—1968. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Van  Dresar,  22 

Wis.  511—511,  804. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Wallace,   66 

Fed.  506—96.  470. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Warren,    16 

111.  502—196,  261,  292,  387. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weeks,  99  111. 

App.  518—974. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Welirman,  25 

Okl.    147—854,  894. 
Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Western  Hay 

&  Grain  Co.    (Neb.),  90  N.  W.  205 

—768. 
Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.    Whedbee 

(Ark.),  153  S.  W.  86—629. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Whitten.   90 

Ark.  462—1293,  1384,  1385,  1388. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Wilcox,    44 

Alb.  L.  J.  70—1587. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Willard.   31 

111.  App.  435—999. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams.  200 

Fed.  207—1036,  1467. 
rhicago.  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  55 

111.    185-1009,    1143,    1409,   1712. 
Chiciioo.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  Gl 

Xeb.  008—790,  791,  793. 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  23  111. 
App.  63—1705,  1713,  1721. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Winfrey 
(Neb.),  93  N.  W.  526—1513,  1676. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Witty,  32  Neb. 
275—457,  495. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wolcott,  141 
Ind.  267—137,  147,  148,  159,  541, 
601,  704,  729,  733. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood.  104 
Fed.  663—997. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woodward,  164 
Ind.  360—785,  809,  904. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woodward 
(Ind.),  72  N.  E.  558—730. 

Chicago,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.  v.  Woolner  Dis- 
tilling Co.,   160  111.  App.   192—699. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woolridge,  32 
111.  App.  237—1601. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Young  &  Ball 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  107  S.  W.  127— 
599,  833,  840,  867,  920. 

Chicago,  etc..  Transfer  R.  Co.  r. 
Gruss,  102  HI.  App.  439—549. 

Chicago  Exchange  Bldg.  Co.  v.  Nel- 
son,  197  III.  334—102. 

Chicago  Exchange  Bldg.  Co.  v.  Nel- 
son, 98  111.  App.  189—102. 

Chicago  Fifth  Nat.  Bank  v.  Bayley, 
115  Mass.  228—227. 

Chicago  G.  W.  Ry.  Co.  v.  M'ohaupt, 
162  Fed.  66,5—1654. 

Chicago  Packing  &  P.  Co.  v.  Savan- 
nah^ etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  Ga.  140—236. 

Chicago,  R.  I.  &  P.  Ev.  Co.  v.  Colby 
(Neb.),  96  N.  W.   14.5—127. 

Chicago,  R.  I.  &  P.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Hinds, 
56  Kan.  758—1518. 

Chicago,  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  .James 
(Kan.),  100  Pac.  641—1161. 

Chicago,  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  New- 
house  Mill  &  Lumber  Co.,  90  Ark. 
452—596. 

Chicago,  R.  T.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Plant- 
ers' Gin  &  Oil  Co.,  88  Ark.  77— 
349,  546,  60S,  621. 

Chicago  Term.  Trans.  Co.  v.  Kotoski, 
199  111.  383-1151. 

Chicago  Term.  Trans.  Co.  v.  O'Don- 
nell,  213  HI.  54.5—1062. 

Chicago  Term.  Trans.  Co.  v.  Schmell- 
ing,  99  Til.  App.  597—997. 

Chicago  Term.  Trans.  Co.  v.  Yonn'» 
118  III.  App.  226—079.  1441. 


Ixvi 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references   are   to   the   pages.) 


CQiicago      Union      Traction      Co.      v. 

Bork.-a,   130   ill.  App.    105— 14S0, 

Chic^^go      Union      Traction      Lo.      v. 

Br.thanor.  125  II  .  App.  204—1436. 

Chica-,'o      L'nion      Traction      Co.      v. 

Bretlianer,  49  Ind.  App.  143—1433. 

Chicago      Lhiion      Traction      Co.      V. 

Crosby,   109   111.  App.  644—1478. 
Chicago*  Union    Traction    Co.    v.    Mc- 

Clevey,  126  111.  App.  21—1398. 
Ohicaii'o      Union      Traction      Co.      v. 
Mommsen,  107  111.  App.  353—1212, 
i4S6. 
Chic  o-o      Union      Traction      Co.      v. 

O'Brien,  219  U.  S.  303—983. 
Chicago  Unicni  Traction  Co.  v.  Rosen- 
thal, 118  111.  App.  278—997,  1002. 
Chicago   West   D.   Ry.   Co.  v.   Becker, 

128   111.  545—1559. 
Chicago  West.  D.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Haviland, 

12   I  1.  App.  501—1593. 
Chicago    West.    D.    Rv.    Co.   v.   Klau- 

ber,  9  111.  App.  613—1640. 
Chicrgo   West.    D.    Ry.   Co.   v.   Mills, 

105  111.  03—1237. 
Ohickering  v.  Fowler,  4  Pick.  (Mass.) 

371—199,  257. 
Ohilds  V.  Digby,  24  Pa.  St.  23—332. 
Childs  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77 

Hun    (N.  Y.),  539—1258. 
Chiles   V.    Chesapeake   &   0.   Ry.   Co., 

218  U.  S.  71—1779. 
Chilton  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  114 

Mo.   88— 10G8,   1143. 
China  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Force,  142  N. 

Y.   90-100—448. 
Chippendale    v.    Lancashire,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    15   Jur.    1106—464. 
Chlanda  v.  St.  Louis  Transit  Co.,  213 

Mo.  244—1499. 
Choate  v.  Missouri   Pac.   Ry.   Co.,  67 

Mo.  Apn.  10.5—965. 
Choctaw,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Bourland 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),   87   S.  W.   173— 
623. 
Ctoct^w,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  HiU   (Tenn.), 

75   S.  W.  963—1073,   17II. 
Choctnw.    rtc.    R.    Co.   v.   Jacobs,    15 

Ok' a.  40.3—620. 
Choctaw,   e+c,   Co.  v.  Rolfe,   76   Ark. 

2?n— 300. 
Oholiet+p    ".    Railroad    Co.,    26    Neb. 

159—1237. 
Chonii'^tt"   V.    Ponthern    Elec.   R.   Co., 
80  Mo.  Apt).  515—1214,  1505. 


Cliorn  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  168 

Mo.  App.  518 — 1625. 
Chouteau   v.   Steamboat   St.  Anthony, 

20   .\lo.  519—109,   110. 
Chout.au  V.   Stiamboat  St.  Anthony, 

16  Mo.  210—9,  109,  110,  174. 
Chout>:aux  v.  Leech,  18  Pa.  St,  224 — 

33,  334,  338,  740. 
Christensen    v.    Metropolitan    St.    R. 

Co.,    137    Fed.   708—1103. 
Christenson  v.  American  Kxp.  Co.,  15 
Minn.    270—39,    40,    81,    453,    456, 
762,  890,  1450. 
Christenson   v.   Brooklyn    Heights   R. 
Co.,   134  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    703— 
1011. 
Christenson  v.  Oregon  Sliort  Line  R. 
Co.,     35     Utah,     137—1493,     1495, 
1096. 
Christian  v.  First  Div.  St.  Paul,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  20  Minn.  21—273. 
Christie  v.  Griggs,  2  Campb.  79—948, 

1118,   1505. 
Christie  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  94 

Mo.  453—678. 
Christy  v.  Smith,  23  Vt.  663—85. 
Ohrystal  v.  Flint,  82  Fed.  472—1986, 

2036. 
Chudnooski  v.  Eckels,  232  HI.  312— 

993. 
Cliurch    V.    Atchison,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    1 

Okla.  44—740,  747. 
Church    V.    Chicago,    etc.,   R.   Co.,    81 

Neb.   615—786. 
Cliurch   V.  New  York   Cent.,   etc.,   R. 
Co.,   135  App.  Div.    (N.   Y.)    914 — 
1357,  1380,  1388. 
Cicero  &   P.   St.  R.   Co.  Neixner,   160 

111.  320—1616. 
Cincinnati  &  C.  Traction  Co.  v.  Nor- 
folk &  W.  Ry.  Co.,  28  Ohio  Cir.  Ct. 
R.  543—700. 
Cincinnati    Chronicle    Co.    v.    White 
Line    Cent.    Transp.    Co.,    1     Cine. 
Super.  Ct.   Rep.  300-620. 
Cincinnati,    etc..    Mail     Line     Co.    V. 

Boal,  15  Ind.  345—8,  109. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Berdan,  22 

Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  326 — 419,  432. 
Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Branden- 
burg,  142  Ky.  814—1442. 
Cincinnati,   etc.,   R.    Co.  v.   Brown,  2 

Ohio  D"c.  494-1501. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Butler,  103 
Ind.  31—1541. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the   pages.) 


Ixvii 


CSncinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carper,  112 

Ind.  26—988,   1013,   1285. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carson,  145 

Ky.  81—1417,  1546. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Case,   122 

Ind.  310—342,  834. 
Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Cole,    29 

Ohio  St.   ]26— 1714. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cooper,  120 

Ind.  469—1220,  1247. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Disbrow,  76 

Ga.  253—816. 
Cincinnati,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Eaton,  94 

Ind.    474—1701,    1703,    1709,    1710. 
Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    to.    v.    Giboney, 

30  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1005—1279. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Graves,  21 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  684—896. 
Cincinnati,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Greening, 

30  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1180—786,  912. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.   Co.   v.   Gregg,  25 

Ky.  Law  Rep.  2329—820,  915,  938. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate 

Commerce    Commission,   206    U.    S. 

142—1804,   1842. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Interstate 

Commerce    Com.,    162    U.    S.    184 — 

1760,  1761,   1773,  1775,  1781,  1793, 

1825,  1829,  1956. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  22 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  630—972,  1221. 
Cincinnati,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Kelsey,   9 

Ohio  C.  C.  170—1475. 
Cincinnati,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    Logan    & 
Handley,  29  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1123— 

863. 
Cincinnati,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Lohe 

(Ohio),  67  N.  E.   161—1071,   1572, 

1639. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lorton,  33 

Ky.    Law    Rep.    689—1109. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Marcus.  38 

111.  219—1294,    1295,   1300.    1302. 
Cincinnati,  e-tc,  R.  Co.  v.  McCool,  26 

Ind.   140—381. 
Cincinnati,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  McMuHen, 

117  Ind.  439— 1.542. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  N.  K.  Fair- 
banks &  Co.,  90  Fed.  467—340. 
Cincinnati,   etc..   R.    Co.   v.   Nolan,   8 

Olno  C.  C.  347— 15r3. 
CinciT^n'ti,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   P<ndlpton 

&  TTuf^on,  29  Ky.  Law  Rnp.  721— 

597.  826. 
CSncinnati,  e+c,  R.  Co.  v.  Pontine.  19 

Ohio  St.  221-767,   7701,    ]4;-)S. 


Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Sanders, 

118  Ky.   115—873. 
Cincinnati  R.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Skiilman, 

39   Ohio  St.  444—1258,  1393,  1394, 

1396,   1427. 
Cincinnati,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Spratt,   2 

Duv.    (Ky.)    4—582,  590,  779. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wagner,  15 

Onio  C.  C.  395— lUOl. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walrath,  6 

Ohio  Dec.   718—1155. 
Cincinnati,   etc.,  R.   Co.'s  Receiver   v. 

Webb,    103    Ky.    705,   20   Ky.   Law 

Rep.  330—843. 
Cincinnati   Grain  Co.  v.  Louisville  & 

1^.  K.  Co.,  146  Ky.  237—173. 
Cincinnati    Northern    Tract.     Co.     v. 

Rosnagle,  84  Ohio  St.  310 — 1398. 
Cincinnati    St.    R.    Co.    v.    Kelsey,    9 

Ohio  C.  C.  170—1501. 
Cincinnati  Traction  Co.  v.  Leach    169 

Fed.  549—1549,   1651. 
Citizens'  &  Marine  Bank  v.  Southern 

Ry.  Co.,   153  N.  C.  346—200. 
Citizens'  Bank  v.  Norfolk  &  W.  Ry. 

Co.    (Va.),  78  S.  E.  568—682,  699. 
Citizens'     Bank     v.     The     Nantucket 

Steamboat  Co.,  2  Story   (U.  S.),  16 

35—5,  23,  76,  108,  165. 
Citizens'  Ry.  Co.  v.  Craig   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),   69   S.  W.  239—1214. 
Citizens'  Rv.  Co.  v.  Farley   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  136  S.  W.  94—983. 
Citizens'  Ry.  Co.  v.  Griffin,  Tex.  Civ. 

App.   109  S.  W.  999—1570. 
Citizens'    St.    R.    Co.    v.    Clark    (Ind. 

App.),    71    N.    E.    53—1150,    1416, 

1426. 
Citizens'   St.   R.   Co.  v.   Hamer    (Ind. 

App.),  62  N.  E.  778—1587. 
Citizens'  St.   R.  Co.  v.  Hoffbauer,  23 

Ind.  App.  614—1646. 
CitizfiTis'   St.   R.   Co.   V.   Howard,   102 

Tenn.  474—1564. 
Citizens'   St.   R.   Co.  v.  Jolly    (Ind.), 

67     N.    E.    935—975,    1216,     1615, 

1620. 
Citizens'  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Merl,  134  Ind. 

f;09— 49,   1214. 
Citizens'  St.   R.  Co.  v.  Merl,  26  Ind. 

App.  284—976,  983,  984.  987.  1617. 
Citizens'    St.    R.    Co.    v.    Sinclair,    36 

T'x.  Civ.  App.  266—1105. 
Citizens'  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Steen,  42  Ark. 

321—1081. 


Ixviii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   tlie   ptges. ; 


Citizins'  St.  R.  Oo.  v.  Stoddard   (IikI. 

App.)    37  N.  E.  723— loo9. 
Citizens    St.   R.  Co.   v.  Twinanus   111 

Ind.  5S7— 49,  50,   1087,   1098,   1215. 
Citizens'   St.   R.  Co.   v.  Willoe>by,   134 

lud.  563—1148. 
Citv   Bank  v.   Rome,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   44 

N.   Y.    13(i— 222,  232,  233. 
City  Electric  Ry.  Co.  v.  Salmon,  1  Ga. 

App.  491—1058. 
City    Electric    R.    Co.    v.    Shropshire, 

101   Ga.  33—1426. 
City,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Brauss,   70  Ga. 

368—380,   1711,  1712,   1722. 
City,  «tc.,   R.  Co.  V.  Findley,  76  Ga. 

311—1475. 
City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sveddorg,  20  App. 

D.  C.  543—1475. 
City  of  Kansas  Citv   v.   Orr    (Kan.), 

61  Pac.  3!)7— 1599. 
Citv    of    Vicksburg   v.    Hennessey,   54 

Mass.  391—1541. 
Citv  R.  Co.  V.  Lee,  50  N.  J.  L.  438— 

1641,  1644. 
Claflin  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Al- 
len     (Mass.),    341—21,    234,    245, 

277. 
Claflin  V.  Meyer,  75  N.  Y.  260—413, 

570. 
Claiborne  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 

Tex.   Civ.   App.   648—1164.    1221. 
Clanton   v.   Morgan's   La.,  etc.,   S.   S. 

Co.,   127  La.   1—1660. 
Clanton  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  165  Ala. 

485—1650. 
Clapp    V.    Hudson    River   R.    Co.,    19 

Barb.   (N.  Y.)    461—1718,  1729. 
Clapp  V.  Stanton,  20  La.  Ann.  49.5 — • 

54. 
Clara  Turner  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  86  Conn.  71—172,  178. 
Clark  V.   American   Express  Co.,    130 

Iowa,   254 — 597,  606.  607. 
Clark  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,   164 

Cal.  36.3—1684. 
Clark  V.  Barnwell,  12  How.    (U.  S.) 

272—75,  76,  551,  569,  575,  578. 
Clark  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.   O.,   64  N. 

H.  323—1511. 
Clark    V.    Brewer,    6    Gray     (Mass.), 

320—332. 
Clark  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  127  Mo. 

197—1404. 
Clark  V.   Colorado,   etc.,  R.   Co.,    165 

Fed.  408—970. 


Llark    v.   Durham   Traction   Co.,    138 

N.   C.  77—962,   1007,   1249. 
Clark   V.   Eastern    R.   Co.,    139   Ma*J8. 

423—1351,    1353. 
Clark  V.  Eighth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  36  N.  Y. 

135—1642,   1644. 
Clerk   V.   Faxton,   21   Wend.   153—61, 

62,  424,  1338,   1451. 
Clark   V.   Great  Northern   R.   Co.,   37 

Wash.  537—1433,   1434. 
Clark  V.  Harrisburg  Traction  Co.,  20 

Pa.   Super.   Ct.   76—1406. 
Clarke  v.  Louisville  &  M.  R.  Co.,  101 

Ky.   34 — 1655. 
Clark  V.   Louisville  &  N.   R.   Co.,   33 
'       Ky.  Law  Re-p.  797—969. 
Clark  V.  Lowell,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Gray 

(Mass.),  231—633. 
Clark  V.  Martin,  135  N.  Y.  Supp.  664 

—474. 
>  Clark  V.  Alassacluisetts,  etc.,  Ins.  Co., 

19   Ma^s.   2    (Pick.)     104—243. 
Clark  V.  Masters.  14  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 

(1    Bosvv.)    177—675,   676,   677. 
Clark   V.    McDonald,    4    McCord     (S. 

C),  223—31,  948. 
Clark  V.  Metropolitan   St.  R.  Co.,  68 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    49—1607. 
Clark  V.  Nassau  Elec.  R.  Co.,  9  App. 

Div.    (N.  Y.)    51—1509. 
Clark  V.  Needles.  25  Pa.  St.  338—81, 

119,   170,  342,  352,  372,  375. 
Clark  V.  New  Y'ork  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

141  N.  Y'.  Rupp.  966—1382. 
Clark  V.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  39  Mo.  184— 

324,  372. 
Clark  V.  Railroad  Co.,  127  Mo.  210 — 

1488. 
Clark  V.  Richards,  1  Conn.  M — 75. 
Clark   V.   Rochester,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    14 

N.  Y.  570—31,  784,  816,  823. 
Clark   V.    Spencer,    10    Wartits     (Pa,), 

335—571. 
Clark  V.   St.  Louis,  etc.,   R.    Co.,   64 

Mo.  447—485,  822, 
Clark  V.  Ulster  &  D.  R.  Co.,  189  N. 

Y.  93—931,  935. 
Clark  V.  Union   Ferry  Co.,  35  N.  Y. 

485—59. 
Clark  V.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91 

N.  C.  512—1391,  1393,  1396. 
Clarke-Lawrence    Co.    v.    Chesapeake 

&  0.  R.  Co.,  63  W.  Va.  423—277, 

508. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Ixis 


(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


Clarkson   v.    Edes,    4    Cow.    (N.    Y.) 

470—625. 
Clarkson  v.   Erie  &  Noth   Shore   Di- 
spatch, 6  111.  App.  284—48. 
Claybrook   v.    Hannibal,    etc.,   R.    Co. 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),   73   S.   W.  24— 

1026. 
daypool  V.  McAllister,  20  111.  504— 

59. 
Cleary  v.  Bloomington,  etc.,  Elec.  Ry. 

Co.,   150  111.  App.  418—1650. 
Clegg  V.  Gulf,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  104  Tex. 

280—787. 
Clegg  V.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  135  N.  C. 

148—291. 
Clegg  V.   St.  Louis  &   F.  R.   Co.,   203 

Fed.  971—1811. 
Clegg   Lumber    Co.   v.   Atlantic   &   B. 

Ry.  Co.,  123  Ga.  603—682. 
deghorn  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  56  N.  Y.  44—1131,  1723,  1724, 

1725. 
Clement  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  9  N.  Y.  Supp.  601—234. 
Clemmens       v.       Wasliington       Park 

Steamboat     Co.,    162     Fed.     815— 

1515. 
Clendaniel    v.    Tuckerman,    17    Barb. 

(N.  Y.)    184—164,  198. 
Clerc   V.    Morgan's    L.    &    T.    R.    Co., 

107   La.   370—1100,    1166,   1199. 
Cleve  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Neb. 

158—825. 
Cleve  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Neb. 

166—841. 
Cleveland    v.    Bangor,    87    Me.    259 — 

1600. 
Cleveland    v.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    94 

Ind.  276—1257. 
Cleveland   v.   New   Jersey   Steamboat 

Co.,  125  N.  Y.  299—1124. 
Cleveland    v.   New   Jersey   vSteamboat 

Co.,  98  N.  Y.  562—1115. 
Cleveland   v.   New   .Jersov    Steamiboat 

Co.,  68  N.  Y.  306— 986,  990.   1627. 
Cleveland    4    Pine    Bluff,    Arkansas, 

Ry.   Co.    (Ark.),   154   S.   W.    191— 

1045. 
Cleveland,  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Rv.  Co.  v. 

Henry,  170  Ind.  94—13,  24,  97.  121, 

1277,  1458.   1468. 
Cleveland  Citv  Rv.  Co.  v.  Os'bom,  66 

Ohio  St.  4.5—1223,  1486. 
Cleveland  Citv  R.  Co.  v.  Roi:buck,  22 

Ohio  C.  C.'R.  99—1425. 


Cleveland  Elec.  R.  Co.  v.  Wadsworth, 

25  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  376—1692. 
Cleveland,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Anderson, 

21  O.  C.  0.  R.  288,  110  C.  D.  765 

—1081. 
Cleveland,   etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Balleutino, 

84  Fed.  935—548. 
Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Bartram, 

11    Ohio   St.   457—991,    1058,   1069, 

1136,  1145,  1411,  1423,  1614. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beckett,   11 

lud.  App.  547—1394,   1416. 
Cleveland,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   B^t,    169 

111.  301—971,   1044. 
Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   C.    &   A. 

Potts  &  Co.   (Ind.  App.),  71  N.  E. 

685—481,  573. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carey   (Ind. 

App.),  71  N.  E.  244—552. 
Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Cline,    HI 

111.  App.  416—548,  549. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  ClosSer,  126 

Ind.  348—146,   160,  679. 
Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.    Crawford, 

24    Ohio    St.    631—571,    905,    1476, 

1478. 
Cleveland,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Curran,   19 

Ohio    St.     1—8,    457,     1033,     1037, 

1038,   1450,   1461,   1467. 
Cleveland,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Druien,  26 

Ky.  Law  Rep.  103—449. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hadley,  170 

Ind.  204 — 1491,   1696. 
Cleveland,     etc.,    R.     Co.     v.     Hayes 

(Ind.),  102  N.  E.  34—317. 
Cleveland,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Heath,   22 

Ind.  App.   47—349,  545,  903. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hirsch,  204 

Fed.  849—1818. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Holden,  73 

111.  App.  582—628,  762. 
Cleveland,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Hollowell, 

172  Ind.  466—893. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Illinois,  177 

U.  S.  514—1894. 
Cleveland,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Jones   (Ind. 

App.),  99  N.  E.  .503—982. 
Cleveland,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Ketcham, 

133  Ind.  346—1030,   1049. 
Cleveland,  etc..  R.  (  o.  v.  Kinsley,  27 

Ind.   App.   135—1416. 
Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Kamm,   73 

111.  App.  592—528,  691,  702. 
Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Lindsay, 

109  111.  App.  .533—549,  5o2. 


jxx 


TABLE  OF  CAfeES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Louisville 

Tin  &  Stove  Co.,  33  Ky.  Law  Hep. 
924 — 5GJ. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Manson,  30 

Ohio    St.    451—1213,    121!),    lliOl. 
Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    McClurg, 

li:t    U.   S.   454—026. 
Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   McHenry, 

47   111.  App.  301—1107,  1665. 
Clevokvad,     etc.,    R.    Co.     v.     Moline 

Plow    Co.,    13    Ind.   App.   225—218. 
Cleveland,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  Moneyliun, 

141)    ind.    147,    44    N.    E.    HOG— 

1506,  1647. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Newell,  104 

Ind.  264—116,   1512,   1556. 
Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Newell,  75 

Ind.    542—1083,    1261,    1501,    1558. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ncwlin,  74 

111.  App.  638—479. 
Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Patterson, 

69   III.  App.  438—876. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Patton,  203 

111.  376—858,  906,  933. 
Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Perishow, 

61   111.  App.   179—133,  287. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v,  Perkins,  17 

Mich.  296—585,  838. 
Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co,   v.   Reese,    93 

111.  App.   657—1200. 
Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Rudy,    17 

Ind.  181—680,  830,  887,  901. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sargent,  19 

Ohio  St.  438—272,  847. 
Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Scott,    111 

111.  App.  234—985. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sutherland, 

19  Ohio  St.  151—1727. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Troesch,  68 

111.  545—1533. 
Cleveland,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    Wade,    18 

Ind.  App.  346—1112,  1601.  1607. 
Cleveland,  etc  ,  R.  Co.  v.  Walrath,  38 

Ohio   St.  461—68,  945,   1106,   1505. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wright,  25 

Ind.  App.  525—206. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  Traction  Co.  v.  Ward, 

27  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  Rep.  761-1100. 
Cline  v.  Pittsburg  Rys.  Co.,  220   Pa. 

586—1522. 
Clintock   v.   Pennsylvania  R.   Co.,  21 

W.  N.  C.   (Pa.)    13.3—1675. 
Clinton   v.   Prooklvn   Heights  R.    Co., 

01  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)  374—1620. 
Clinton  V.  Root,  58  Mich.   182—1576, 
1608. 


Clotworthy  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

SO  Mo.  220—1678. 
Cloud   v.    St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    14 

Mo.  App.  136— yjO. 
Clough  v.  Grand  Trunk  &  Western  K. 

Co.,  155  Fed.  81—1047. 
Clow  v.  Pittsburgh  Traction  Co.,  158 

Pa.  410—1475,   1486,   1494,   1504. 
Clubb  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.,  136 

Mo.   App.    1—885,   901. 
Clunn   V.    Willianisport,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

39  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  591—591,  998. 
Clyde  V.  Hubbard,   88  Pa.   St.  358— 

740. 
Clyde   Steamship    Co.  v.  Burrow,   36 

Fla.  121—26,  485. 
Coasting  Co.  v.  Tolson,  139  U.  S.  557 

—1543. 
Coates  V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   8   S. 

D.  173—539. 
Coates  V.  United  States  Express  Co., 

45   Mo.  238—754,  779. 
Cobb    V.    Boston    El.    Ry.,    179    Mass. 

212—1194. 
Cobb  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  1  Q.  B. 

459—1701,   1704. 
Cobb  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  88  HI. 

394—136. 
Cobb  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  38  Iowa, 

«01— 117,    136,    185,   344,   556,   582, 

615,  617,  727. 
Cobb  V.  Lindell  R.  Co.,  149  Mo.  135— 

1239. 
Cobb  V.   St.  Louis  &  H.  R.  Co.,   149 

Mo.  609—1086. 
Cobban  v.  Downe,  5  Esp.  N.  P.  41— 

186. 
Coburn   v.   Moline,  E.   M.   &   W.   Ry. 

Co.,  243   111.  448—1509. 
Coburn  v.  Moline,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.,   149 

111.  App.  132—1531,  1574. 
Coburn  v.  Morgan's  L.  &  T.  R.   Co., 

105  La.  398—1025. 
Cocliran  v.  Dinsmore,  49  N.  Y.  249 — 

575,  578. 
Coddinatnn  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

102  N.  Y.  66—947,  1080,  1214,  1218, 

1208. 
Cody  V.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  4  Sawy. 

(ij.  S.)    114—1029. 
Cody  y.  Duluth  St.  Ry.  Co,   (Minn.), 

102  N.  W.  201—1682. 
Cody  y.  New  York,  etc.,   R,  Co.,   151 

Mass.  462—1628. 
Coe  V,  Errol,  116  U,  S,  517—1852. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Ixxi 


Coe  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Fed. 

775 — 246,  733. 
Coffin   V.    New    York    Cent.,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  56  N.  Y.  632—452. 
Coffin  V.  New  York  Central  R.  Co.,  64 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    379—431,  447,  452. 
Coggins  V.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   18 

111.  App.  620—1150,  1170. 
Coggs  V.  Bernard,  2  Ld.  Rayn.  909 — 

5,  7,  11,  27,  28,  29,  75,  324. 
Cogsville  V.  West  St.,  etc.,  E.  R.  Co., 

5  Wash.  46—1717. 
Cogswell   V.   West   Side,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

5  Wash.  46—49,  990,  1218,  1646. 
Cohen  v.  Farmers'  Loan  &  Trust  Co., 

127   N.  Y.   Supp.   561—1529. 
Cohen  v.  Hume,  1  McCord  L.   (S.  C.) 

439—75,  169. 
Cohen  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  126 

Mo.  App.  244—763. 
Cohen  v.  Morris  European  &  Ameri- 
can Express   Co.,   136  N.  Y.   bupp. 

489—509. 
Cohen   v.    Southern    Express    Co.,    45 

Ga.  148—339,  743. 
Cohen    v.     South    Eastern   R.   Co.,   2 

Exch.  Div.  253—428. 
Cohen  v.   St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   59 

Mo.  App.  66—1350,  1353. 
Colin  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

6  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    193—1553. 
Cohn  V.   Piatt,  48  Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.) 

378—791. 
Cohn-Goodman    Co.    v.    Wells,    Fargo 

E.cpre?R   Co.,   32    Ohio   Cir.   Ct.   R. 

190—501. 
Coine   v.    Chicaeo,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    123 

Iowa,  458—1711. 
Colbeck  V.  Sampsell,  140  111.  App.  506 

—1023. 
Coldwcll   V.    Manhattan    Ry.    Co.,   57 

Hun    (N.  Y.),  452—1207. 
Col  dwell  V.  Murphy,   11   N.  Y.  416— 

1501, 
Cole  V.  Atlnntic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Ga. 

474—1178. 
Cole  V.   Gonrlwin.    19   Wend.    fN.   Y.) 

251 — 44.  02.  76,  116.  424.  426,  429, 

464,  490,  948,  1302.  1330.  1338, 

1449,   1451. 
Cole  V.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  117 

Minn.  .3.3—513. 
ole   V.  Now  York   Cent.  R.  Co.,  48 

N.  Y.  079-1506. 


Cole  V,  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Mo. 

App.   443—234. 
Cole   V.   Western   Union   Tel.   Co.,   33 

Minn.  227—478. 
Colegrove  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

20  N.  Y.  492—1209. 
Coleman  v.   Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co,,  106 

Mass.  160—1148. 
Coleman  v.  Frazier,  4  Rich    (S.  C), 

146-85. 
Coleman  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   84 

Ga.    1—986,    1061. 
Coleman   v.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

106  Mass.  160—1181,  1425,  1434. 
Coleman   v.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

102  N.  E.  92—424,  500. 
Coleman    v.    Riches,    16    C.    B.    104— 

229,  542. 
Coleman   v.   Second  Ave,   R.   Co.,   114 

N.  Y.  609,  612—1097,  1642. 
Coleman   v.    Yazoo   &   M.   V.   R.    Co., 

90  Miss.  629—1170. 
Coles  V.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  86  Ga. 

251—191,  730. 
Coles   V.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   41 

111.   App.   607—445,   481,   766,   785, 

880. 
Cole's    Adm'r   v.    Chesapeake   O.    Ry. 

Co.    (Ky.),  113  S.  W.  822—1284. 
Colfax  Mountain  Fruit  Co.  v.  South- 
ern Pac.  Co.   (Cal.),  46  Pac.  608— 

752. 
Colgate  V.  Pennsylvania  Co.,   102  N. 

Y.  120—217,  220.  222,  225. 
Coll   V.   Eastern   Trans.    Co.,   180   Pa. 

St.  618—1503. 
Coll  V.  Toronto  R.  Co.,  25  Ont.  App. 

5.5—1020. 
Collard   v.    South    Eastern   R.    Co.,   7 

H.  &  N.  79—599,  617. 
Collenrler  v.  Dinsmore,  55  N.  Y.  205 

—203. 
Coller     V.     Frank-ford,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

(Pa.),  9  W.  N.  C.  477—1587. 
Collctt  V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co..  16  Q. 

B.  984.  6  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  305—948, 

1050,  1052. 
Collier   v.   Langan   &   Tnvlor   Storage 

&  Moving  Co.    (Mo.  App.),   127   S. 

W.  435-39,  72. 
Collier  v.  Swinney.   16  Mo.  484 — 350. 
Collins  V.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   104 

Ala.   390—384,   397,   398,   399,   405, 

411. 


Lxxii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   rofi'it'iK'i.'s  are  to  the   pages.) 


Collins     V.     Boston,    L-tc.,    R.    I'o.,    04 

Mass.    (10  Cnsh.)    oOli— 1201,   1300. 
Collins   V.    East   TcniK'ssoo    R.    Co.,    9 

Heisk.    (Tenn.)    S41  — 1511. 
Collins    V.     Union     Tiansp.     Co.,     10 

Watts.    (Ra.)    3S4— ti72. 
Collnian   v.   Collins,   2   Hall.    (N.  Y.) 

51)8—033. 
Colorado  &,  S.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Manatt,  21 

Colo.  App.  593—442,  506. 
Colorado   B.   R.   Co.   v.  Breniman,  22 

Colo.   App.    1—171,    178,   799,   829, 

S72. 
Colorado  Fuel  &  T.  Co.  v.  Southern 

Pac.   Co.,   6   Int.   Com.   Rep.   488— 

1790. 
Colorado  Springs,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Petit, 

37   Colo.  326—961,   1006. 
Colseh   V.    Chicago,   etc.,   R,    Co.,    14!) 

Iowa,    170,    117    N.     W.    281—786, 

827,  854,  876,  897. 
Colt  V.  McMechen,  6  Johns.    (N.  Y.) 

100—27,  75,  313,  569. 
Colton   V.   Cleveland,   etc.,  R.  Co.,   67 

Pa.    St.    211—576,    578. 
Columbus,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Arnold,   31 

Ind.  174—1063. 
Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bridges,  86 

Ala.   448—314. 
Columbus,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Farrell.   31 

Ind.  408—1231,  1250. 
Columbus,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Flournoy, 

75  Ga.  745—248,  600,  603,  618. 
Columbus,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Kennedy,  78 

Ga.  646—309.  576.  1510. 
Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ludden,  89 

Ala.  612—384.  391,  393,  394. 
Columbus,   etc..   R.   Co.  v.   Powell.   40 

Ind.     37—988,     1228,     1247,     1248, 

1390.  1592. 
Columbus  Ry.  v.  Muns.  27  Ohio  Cir. 

Ct.  R.  277—1000. 
Columbus  Ry.  Co.  v.  Asbell,  133  Ga. 

573—997,   1002. 
Columbus  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Wool- 
folk,  94  Ga.  507—677. 
Colwell  V.  Manhattan  R,  Co.,  57  Hun 

(N.  Y.),  542—1645. 
Colyar  v.   Tavlor,    1    Coldw.    (T^nn.) 

3*72—5. 
Combe  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  L. 

T.  N.  S.  631—153,  805,  927. 
Comer  v.   Columbia,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   52 

S.  C.  36 — 815,  915. 
Cfmer  v.  Stewart.  97  Ga.  403—815. 


(omly  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.    (Pa.), 

12  At!.  496—1018. 
Comnierce    Commission    Denver   &    R. 

Co.     V.     Interstate    Commerce,     195 

Fed.  DOS- 1 838. 
Commercial   iJank  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,   100    111.  401—220,  227. 
Commercial   Bank  v.  Pfeiffcr,   108  N. 

Y.  242-220. 
Commercial  Club  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  0  Int.  Cora.  Rep.  647—1794. 
Commonwealth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

129  ]\Iass.  500—1011. 
Commonwealth  v.  Carey,  147  Mass.  40 

—1127. 
Commonwealth   v.    Connecticut   River 

R.  Co.,  15  Gray  (Mass.),  447—1302, 

1303,  1304. 
Commonwealth  v.  Doe,  44  Pa.  Super. 

Ct.  333—1074. 
Commonwealth     v.     Power,     7     Mete. 

(Mass.)      596—1069,      1070,     1127, 

1409. 
Commonwealth  v.   Vermont   &  M.   R. 

Co.,  108  Mass.  7—1020,  1066. 
Compania  De  Navgacion  La  Flecha  v. 

Brauer,  168  U.  S.  104—2010,  2027. 
Compton   V.   Long   Island   R.    Co.,   41 

Hun    (N.  Y.),  642—1220. 
Compton  V.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  1  St. 

Rep.   (N.  Y.)   554—1228. 
Compton  V.  Shaw,  1  Hun  (N.  Y.),  441 

—025,  645. 
Compton  V.  Van  Valkenburgh,  34  N. 

J.  L.  13.5—1070. 
Com'r   V.   Eastern  R.   Co.,   103   Mass. 

258—121. 
Comstock  V.  Affoelter,  50  Mo.   411 — 

134. 
Concord,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Forsaith,   50 

N.  H.   122—161. 
Condiet  v.   Grand   Trunk  R.    Co.,   54 

N.  Y.  500—372,  461,  735,  739,  754, 

753,  770. 
Condon  v.  Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 

Mich.  218-773,  775. 
Condy  v.   St.  Louis,   etc.,  R.  Co..  85 

Mo.  79—1487. 
Condy   v.    St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    1.3 

MJ.  App.  588—1220,  1632. 
Condran   v.   Railroad,   67    Fed.   522 — 

992,  1017. 
Cone  V.    Southern   Ry.   Co.,   85    S.   C. 

.■524—1347,  1388. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to   the   pages.) 


Ixxiii 


Cougar    v.     Galena,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    17 

Wis.  477 — 551,  752. 
Conger   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    E.    Co.,    2i 

Wis.   157—36,  559. 
Conger   v.    Hudson    River    R.    Co.,    6 

Duer    (N.  Y.),  .375—360,  596,  823. 
Conger  v.    St.   Paul,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   45 

Minn.  207—1150. 
Conheim  v.  Chicago  Great  Western  R. 

Co.,  104  Minn.  312—1303,  1385. 
Conkey  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31 

Wis.  619—359,  745,  746,   773,   774, 

776. 
Connaughton  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

13   Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.)    403— ini3. 
Connell  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 

Va.  44—1167,   1190. 
Connell  v.  Mobile,  etc..  R.  Co.  (Miss.), 

7  So.  344—1069. 
Connell  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  134 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   231—1173. 
Connell  Bros.  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.  (N. 

C),  56  S.  E.  559—322. 
ConneU's    Ex'rs    v.    Railway    Co.,    93 

Va.  44—1190. 
Connelly  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co..  68  Hun 

(N.  Y.),  456—1123. 
Conner   v.   Citizens   St.    Ry.   Co.,    105 

Ind.  62—1645. 
Connoble  v.   Clark,   38  Mo.  App.  476 

—624. 
Connolly  v.  Crescent  City  R.  Co.,  4I 

La.   Ann.   57—1258.    1273. 
Connolly   v.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

158  Mass.  8—1691. 
Connolly  v.  Warren,  106  Mass.  146- — 

1296. 
Connor  v.   Concord  &  M.   R.   Co.,   67 

N.  H.  311—1201. 
Connover   v.    Pacific   Express   Co.,    40 

Mo.  App.  31—403. 
Conolly  V.  Knickerbocker  Ice  Co.,  114 

N.  Y.   107—1587. 
Conowingo  Bridge  Co.  v.  Hedrick,  95 

Md.  669—78. 
Conroy   v.    Boston   Elev.   R.   Co.,    188 

Mass.  411—1003. 
Conroy   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    96 

Wis.  243—961,  1007.  1200. 
Conroy     v.     Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    1 

Pittsb.    (Pa.)    440—1213.    1567. 
Cx)ns^)l.  Tract.   Co.  v.  Srott.  58  N.  J. 

L.  682-1692. 
Consol.   Tract.   Co.  v.   Thalheimer.   59 

N.  .7.  L.  474—1224.   1475,   1487. 


Constable  v.  National  Steamship  Co., 

154  U.  S.  51-258,  488. 
Continental  Pass.  R.  Co.  v.  Swain,  13 

W.  N.  C.    (Pa.)   41-1487. 
Converse   v.    Boston,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    58 

N.  H.  521-271. 
Converse  v.  Norwich  Transp.   Co.,  33 

Conn.  166—184,  185,  241,  739,  757, 

774,  780. 
Converse   Bridge    Co.   v.    Collins.    119 

Ala.  534—685. 
Conway   v.   Metropolitan   St.   R.   Co., 

161   Mo.  App.  SI— 981. 
Conway  v.  New  Orleans  &  C.  R.  Co., 

46  La.  Ann.   1429—1239. 
Conwell   v.   Voorhees,    13    Ohio   523 — 

85. 
Conwill  V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Tex. 

96—1235. 
Cook  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Iowa, 

551—157,  160,  1785. 
Cook  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Neb. 

64—886. 
Cook  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  58  Barb.   (N.  Y.) 

312—203.  259,  405,  407. 
Cook  V.  Gourdin.  2  Nott.  &  M.  (S.  C.) 

19—169. 
Cook  V.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 

Mo.  App.  471 — 798. 
Cook  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  19  N.  Y. 

Supp.  648—1487. 
Cook  v.  Marshall  County,   196   U.  S. 

261—1743. 
Cook  y.  Pennsylvania.  97  U.  S.  566 — 

1742. 
Cook  v.  Southern  Lime  &  Cement  Co. 

146   Fed.   101—2027. 
Cooke    v.     Boston,    etc.,    R,    Co.,    113 

Mass.  185 — 1082. 
Cooley  y.  Board  of  Warners,  53  U.  S. 

(12  How.)  299—1747. 
Cooley  y.  Minnesota  Transfer  Co.,  53 

Minn.  327—332.  641. 
Cooley     v.     Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    40 

Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.)    239—1707,   1708. 
Coon    y.    .'Atchison,    etc.,    Ry.    Co.,    8^ 

Kan.  311—1694. 
Cooney   v.    Pullman    Palace    Car    Co , 

121  Ala.  368—65. 
Cooper  v.  Berry.  21  Ga.  526 — 523. 
Coojjer    V.    Century    Realty    Co.,    224 

Mo.   709—103.   1530. 
Cooper    v.    Georgia    Pac.    R.    Co..    92 

Ala.  329—777. 


Ixxiv 


TABLE  OF  OASES. 
(Tlio  referenoea  are  to  the  pagea.) 


Cooper  V.   Kane,    19   Wend.    (N.  Y.) 

3SG — 355. 
Coopor  V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  E. 

C.  L.  73S— lliL 
Cooper  V.   Ealoigh   &   G.   R.   Co.,    110 

Ga.  U59 — S30. 
CoopLM-  V.  Young,  22  Ga.  2G9— 620. 
Coor  D'Alene  &  S.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Union 

Pac.  R.  Co.,  49  Wash.  244—1845. 
Coosa   Kivir    Steamboat   Co.   v.   Bar- 
clay. 30  Ala.  120—314. 
Coos  Bay,  etc.,  Kav.  Co.  v.  Siglin,  34 

Or.   80-281,  328. 
Cope  V.  Cordova,  1  Rawle   (Pa.),  203 

—198,    190,  257. 
Copclnnd  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 

177  N.  Y.  570— 1G92. 
Copp  V.  Louisville  &  R.  Co.,  43  La. 

Ann.  511— 187G. 
Coppin  V.  Braithwaite,  8  Jur.  875 — • 

1712. 
Coppock   V.   Long   Island   R.    Co.,    89 

Hun     (N.     Y.),     18G— 1450,     1454, 

14G2. 
Corbett   v.    Chicacro,    etc.,   R.   Co.,    86 

Wis.   82— 43G,   819,   848. 
Corbett   v.    Twenty-third    St.   R.   Co., 

42  Hun    (N.  Y.),  587-1182,   1183. 
Corcoran  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc..  R. 

Co.,   25   App.   Div.    (N.   Y.)    479— 

14GG. 
Cordell   v.   New   York   Cent.,   etc.,   R, 

Co.,   75   N.  Y.   330—1533. 
Cordiner  v.  Los  Angeles  Traction  Co., 

5  Cal.  App.  400— 1G98. 
Cork  Distilleries  Co.  v.  Great  South- 
ern, etc..  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  7  H.  L.  Cas. 

269—242. 
Cork-hill  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.    (N. 

J.),  54  Atl.  522—1268. 
Corley  v.   Southern  R.   Co.,   89   S.  C. 

4.32—1417. 
Corlin  v.  West  End  St.  Ry.   Co.,   154 

Mass.  197— 1G15. 
Cormack   v.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

196  N.  Y.  442—247. 
Cormiek  v.  Pennsylvania  Cent.  R.  Co., 

80  N.  Y.  35.3—1306. 
Cornelius  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

Kan.  599—883. 
Cornin?  &  Co.  v.  Peoria,  etc..  R.  Co., 

144  111.  App.  407—170,  174. 
Cornith    Ensrine    &    Boiler    Works    v. 

Mississippi   Cent.  R.   Co.,   95   Miss. 

817—673. 


Cornman  v.  Eastern  Counties  R.  Co., 

4  11  &  N.  781—1124. 
Cornwall  v.  Sullivan  11.  Co.,  28  N.  H. 

IGl— 1270. 
Correll  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

Iowa,  120—1510. 
Corsar  v.  J.  D.  Sprecklcs  &  Bros.  Co., 

141  Fed.  260—2005. 
Corso   V.   New   Orleans,    etc.,   R.   Co., 

48  La.  Ann.  1286—592. 
Corwin   v.   Long   Island   R.   Co.,  2  N. 

Y.  City  Ct.  Rep.   106—1183. 
Cosgrove  v.   Consolidated  Ry.  Co.,  80 

Conn.  717-1684. 
Cossitt  V.  St.  Louis  &  S.  Ry.  Co.,  224 

Mo.  97—1685. 
Costello  V.  St.  Louis  Transit  Co.,  119 

Mo.  App.  391—1625. 
Costello  V.   Syracuse,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  63 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    92—1107. 
Costello  V.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  161  N. 

Y.  317—1588. 
Costello   V.   Throe  Hundred   and   Sev- 
enty Two  Thousand  Seven  Hundred 

Laths,  etc.,  44  Fed.  105—645. 
Costikyan  v.   Rome,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   58 

Hun   (N.  Y.),  590—1084,  1107. 
Cotant    V.    Boone    Suburban    Ry.    Co. 

(Iowa),  59  N.  W.  115—1061,  1232. 
Cotting  V.  Kansas  City  Stock  Yards 

Co.,  82  Fed.  839-1776. 
Cotting  V.  Stock  Yards  Co.,  183  U.  S. 

79-1762. 
Cottrell  V.  Pawtucket  St.  Ry.  Co.,  27 

R.  I.  565-1635. 
Coulter  V.  American,  etc.,  Expr.  Co., 

55  N.  Y.  585—1580. 
Council  V.   St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co., 

123  Mo.  App.  432—854,  865. 
County  of  Leavenworth  v.  Barnes,  94 

U.   S.   70—389. 
County  of  Mobile  v.  Kimball,   102  U. 

S.    "691-1733,     1742,     1746,     1747, 

1748. 
Coup  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Mich. 

111—96,  449,  456,  470,  896. 
Coupland    v.    Housatonic    R.    Co.,    61 

Conn.  531—427,  492,  518,  528,  804, 

819.  821. 
Courteen   v.   Kanawha  Dispatch,    110 

Wis.  610—420. 
Cousins   V.   Lake    Shore,    etc.,   R.    Co., 

96   Mich.   386—1613,   1675,    1676. 
Coventry  v.  Great  Eastern  R.  Co.,  11 

Q.  B.'Div.  776—231. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Ixxv 


Covey  V.  Bath,  35  N.  H.  530—1599. 
Covington  v.  Western,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  81 

Ga.  275—1676. 
Covington  v.  Willan,  Gow.   115,  5  E. 

C.  L.  481^63. 
Covington    Bridge    Co.    v.    Kentucky, 

154  U.  S.  204,  218—1734,   1758. 
Covington,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    Sandford, 

164  U.  S.  578—1782. 
Covington  Stock  Yards  Co.  v.  Keith, 

139  U.  S.   128—797,  798,   799,  821, 

1895. 
Covington   Transfer  Co.   v.  Kelly,   36 

Ohio  St.  86—1269. 
Cowan    V.     Bond,   39    Fed.   54—1787, 

1795,  1801. 
Cowan    V.    Western    Union    Tel.    Co. 

(Iowa),  98  N.  W.  281—1701. 
Coward  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

16     Lea    (Tenn.),    225 — 494,    1294, 

1333. 
Cowdrey  v.  G.  H.  &  H.  R.  Co.,  93  U. 

S.  352—46. 
Cowell  v.  Simpson,  16  Ves.  Jr.  275 — 

648. 
Coweta  County  v.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry. 

Co.,  4  Ga.  App.  94—129,  557. 
Cowherd  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co., 

151   Mo.  App.   1—397.  618,  622. 
Cowles  V.  Pointer,  26  Miss.  253—80. 
Cowley   V.    Davidson,    13    Minn.    92 — 

589,  610. 
Cowley  V.  Northern  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  68 

Wash.  558—1808. 
Cox    V.    American    Express    Co.,    147 

Iowa,  137—935. 
Cox   V.    Bruce,   L.   R.    18   Q.   B.   Div. 

147—229. 
Cox  V.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Ala. 

392—202. 
Cox  V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  F.  &  F. 

77—34,  552. 
Cox  V.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123  N.  C. 

613—1544. 
Cox    V.    Peterson,    30    Ala.    608 — 203, 

238,  272.   368. 
Cox  V.  South  Shore  &  B.  St.  Ry.  Co. 

(Mass.),  65  N.  E.  82,3—1541. 
Cox    V.    Vermont    Cent.    R.    Co.,    170 

Ma«s.  120—479. 
Cox  V.  Wilmington  City  R.  Co.  (Del.), 

53  Atl.  509-1533 
Coxe  V.  Hoisloy.  19  Pa.  St.  243 — 524. 
Coxe  V.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,   3  Int. 

Com.  Rep.  460—1761,  1786,  1790. 


Coxe  Bros.  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co., 

3  Int.  Com.  Rep.  460— 1SG4. 
Coxon  V.  North  Eastern  R.  Co.,  4  Ry. 

&  C.  T.  Cas.  284—391. 
Coxon  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  5  H. 

&  N.  274—749,  759. 
Coyle     V.     People's    Ry.    Co.,    7    Pen. 

(Del.),  454—1667. 
Coyle   V.   People's   Ry.   Co.    (Del.   Su- 
per.), 80  Atl.  638—1520,  1548. 
Coyle  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  112  Ga.  121 

—1076,  U33. 
Coyle  V.  Western  R.  Corp.,  47  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)    152—186,  375. 
Coyne  v.  Pittsburgh  Rys.  Co.,  239  Pa. 

17—965. 
Craddock   &  Co.  v.  Wells,   Fargo   Co. 

Express    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),    125    S. 

W.  59—707. 
Craft  V.  Boston  Elevated  Ry.  Co.,  211 

Mass.  374—979. 
Crafter  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

L   C.   P.   300—1115. 
Cragin  v.  Lamkin,   7  Allen    (Mass.), 

395—390. 
Cragin  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  51 

N.   Y.   61—31,   189,   371,   460,   821, 

823,  895,  905. 
Craig  V.  Childress,  Peck  (Tenn.),  270 

—25,  27,  71,  338. 
Craig  V.  Groat  Western  R.  Co.,  24  U. 

C.  Q.   B.  504—1015. 

Craig  V.  Mt.  Carbon  Co.,  45  Fed.  448 

—1041. 
Craig    V.    Wabash    R,    Co.,    142    Mo. 

App.  314—1683. 
Craighead   v.   Brooklvn   City   R.    Co., 

123  N.  Y.  391—1097. 
Grain  v.  Petrie,  6  Hill    (N.  Y.),  522 

—1567. 
Craker   v.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    36 

Wis.   657—1150,    1176,    1713,    1725. 
Cram  v.  Northern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   1  N. 

D.  260—1544. 

Cramer    v.    American    Merchant's    U. 

Exp.  Co.,  56  Mo.  524—381. 
Cramer  v.   Brooklyn  Heights  R.   Co., 

190—1652. 
Cramer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.    153 

Iowa.  103—1837. 
Crandall  v.  Goodrich  Transp.  Co.,  16 

Fed.  75—1533. 
Crandall    v.    Nevada,    73    U.    S.     (6 

Wall.)    35—1734,   1747. 


Ixxvi 


TABLE  QV  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pagc».i, 


Cranston  v.  Marshall,  6  Exch.  396 — 

1707. 
Crauwell  v.   Ship  Fanny   Fosdick,   15 

Lii.  Ann.  43G — 26. 
Crary   v.   Loliiyh   Valley    R.   Co.,   203 

Pa.  525—141)0. 
Crass  V.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ala. 

447—641,  050. 
Cratty  v.  Citv  of  Bangor,  57  Me.  423 

—1600. 
Craven  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  72  Cal. 

345—1557. 
Crawford   v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

26  Ohio  St.  580—991),  1009,  1071. 
Crawford  v.  Gre«t  Western  R.  Co.,  18 

U.  C.  C.  P.  510—7.30,  744,  772. 
Crawford    v.    International    &    G.    N. 

R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  109  S.  W, 

987—920. 
Crawford   v.    Southern   R.   Assoc,   51 

Miss.  222—740,  757,  761. 
Crawford  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  56  S. 

C.  136—778. 
Crawshay  v.  Homfrav,  4  B.  &  Aid.  50 

—648. 
Cray     v.    Hartford    F.     Ins.     Co.,     1 

Blatchf.    (U.  S.)    280—478. 
Craycroft  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 

Mo.  App.  487—453. 
Cream  Citv,  etc..   R.  Co.  v.   Chicago, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

71—459. 
Cream   Citv  R.   Co.   v.   Chicago,   etc., 

R.  Co.,  63  Wis.  93—463,  518. 
Creamer  v.  West  End  St.  Ry.  Co.,  156 

Mass.  320—1002,  1013,  1693. 
Crcason  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149 

Mo.  App.  22.3—1110. 
Creed  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  86  Pa. 

St.     139—959,     1031,     1057,     1145, 

1287. 
Creel  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  137  Mo. 

App.  27—829,  892. 
Creenan  v.  International  Ry.  Co.,  124 

N.  Y.  Supp.  300—1668. 
Crescent     Brewing     Co.,     v.    Oregon 

Short    Line    R.    Co.     (Idaho),    1.32 

Pac.  975—120. 
Crescent  Coal  Co.  v.  Louisville  &  N. 

R.  Co.,  143  Ky.  73—120,  304.  657, 

706. 
Crescent    Liquor    Co.    v.    Piatt,     148 

Fed.  894 — 707. 
Oresson  v.  Philadplpliia.  *^tc.,  R.  Co., 

11   Phila.    (Pa.)    597—993. 


Crews   V.   Richmond,    etc.,    R.  Co.,    1 

Int.   Com.  Rep.  703—1705,   1801. 
Crine  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

84  Ga.  051—1265. 
Crocker  v.  New  London,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

24  Conn.  249—1394,  1395,  1436. 
Crockeron    v.    North    Shore,    etc.,    F. 

Co.,  56  N.  Y.  650—1115. 
Crockett  v.   St.   Louis  &   H.   Ry.  Co., 

147   Mo.  App.   347—297,  535. 
Croft    v.    Baltimore,    etc..    R.    Co.,    1 

McArthur   (D.  C),  492—780,  1361. 
Crofts  V.  Waterhouse,  11  Moore,   133 

—948. 
Orofts  V.  Waterhouse,  3   Biiig.  319 — 

24—1214. 
Crommelin  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

4  Keyes    (N.  Y.),  90—626. 
Crommelin  v.  New  York  &  H.  R.  Co., 

1  Abb.  Dec.   (N.  Y.)   472—701. 
Cronan   v.    Crescont   City    R.   Co.,   49 

La.  Ann.  65—1589. 
Cronan  v.  St.  Louis  &.  S.  F.   R.  Co., 

149   Mo.    App.   384—136,    141,    304. 
Cronk  v.   Wabash   R.   Co.,   123   Iowa, 

349—1500. 
Cronkite  v.  Wells,  32  N.  Y.  247—128, 

187. 
Croom    V.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    52 

Minn.  290—1142,   1247,   1592. 
Crosby   v.    Fitch,    12    Conn.    410—75, 

76,   134,   315,   372. 
Crosby  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  69  Me. 

418-1029. 
Crosby  v.  Pere  Marquette  R.  C^.,  131 

Mich.  288—302. 
Cross    V.    Graves,    4    Tex.    App.    Civ. 

Cas.  §  99,  100—144,  149,  436,  484. 

541. 
Cross  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 

Mo.  App.  6G4— 985. 
Cross    V.    Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Mich.),  .37  N.  W.  361—1145. 
Cross  V.  McFaden,   1   Tex.   Civ.  App. 

461—137,   145. 
Cross   y,   O'Donnell,   44   N.   Y.    661— 

499. 
Crossan   v.    New   York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

149  Mass   196—637,   639. 
Crouch  V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  11 

Exch.  742—117. 
Crouch  V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  C. 

B.   255,    78   E.   C.   L.   25.5 — 42,    117 

523,  528,  744. 
Crouch  V.  I^uisville,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  42 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Ixxvii 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Mo.  Aspp.  248 — 538,  740,   757,   758, 

778. 
Crough   V.   Great   Western   E.   Co.,   2 

H.   &   N.   491—259. 
Crow  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Mo. 

App.   135—441,  823,  904. 
Crowell  V.   Van  Bibber,   18  La.  Ann. 

637—232. 
Crowley  v.  Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  185 

JVIass.  279—999,   1390,   1392. 
Crum  V.  Bliss,  47  Conn.  592—390. 
Crumbacker  v.  Tucker,  9  Ark.  365 — 

529. 
Crump  V.  Davis    (Ind.  App.),   70  N. 

E.  886—1212. 
Crumpley   v.    Hannibal,   etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Mo.),  19  S.  W.  820—1544. 
Crutcher  v.  Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

Ark,  358—620. 
Crutcher    v.    Cleveland,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

132   Mo.  App,   311—1415. 
Crutcher  v.  Kentucky,  141  U.  S.  47— 

1734,  1758. 
Cubbedge  v.  Napier,  62  Ala.  518—390, 
CHiddy  V,  Horn,  46  Mich.  596—1269. 
C\iff  V,  95  Tons  of  Coal,  46  Fed.  670 

—643. 
Culberson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50 

Mo.  App.  556—1246. 
Culberson    v.    Empire    Coal    Co.,    156 

Ala.  416—1175. 
C\ilbreth  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

3  Houst.    (Del.)    392—26,  203,  407, 

410,  555. 
Culhane  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  60  N.  Y.  133—1567. 
CuUen  v,  Higgins,  138  111.  App.  168— 

1067. 
Cullen  V.  Seaboard  Air  Line  R.  Co., 

63   Fla.   122—713,  723. 
Cumberland    Teleph.    &    Tel.    Co.    v. 

Morgan's   L.   &  T.   R.   Co.,   51    La. 

Ann.  29—118,   124.   708. 
Cumberland   Valley    R.    Co.    v.    Mau- 

gans,  61  Md.  5.3-1676,   1677. 
Cumberland  Vallev  R.  Co.   v.  Myers, 

55  Pa.  St.  288—286,  1066. 
Oumble    v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Ark.),    151    S.   W.   240—140. 
Gumming  v.  Barracouta,  40  Fed.  498 

—570. 
Cummings    v.    Dayton,    etc.,    R.    Co. 
(Tnd.),  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  36— 

739.   754,  756. 
Cummings   v.   National    Furnace   Co., 
/      60  Wis.  603—1479. 


Cummings   v.    Wichita   R.    &   L.    Co. 

(Kan.),   74   Pac.   1104—1657. 
Cummings  v.   Worcester,   etc.,   St.   R. 

Co.,     166    Mass.    220—1639,     1G41, 

1655. 
Cunard  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Kelley,  115  Fed. 

678—190,  537,  2020. 
Cunningham    v.    Great    Northern    R. 

Co.,  49  L.  T.  N.  S.  394—550. 
Cunningham  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 

50  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  609—422. 
Cunningham  v,  Pennsylvania  R.  Co,, 

40  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  212—209. 
Cunningham    v.    Seattle    Electric    R., 

etc.,  Co.,  3  Wash.  471—1150,  1167, 

1184. 
Cunningham  v.   Wabash   R.   Co.,    167 

Mo.  App.  273—830,  837. 
Cunningham    v.    Wabash   R.    Co.,    79 

Mo.  App.  524—363. 
Currie  v.  Mendenhall,  77  Minn.  179 — 

1221. 
Currie  v.  Seaboard  Air  Line  Co.,  156 

N.  C.  432—337,  556. 
Curry   v.    Canadian  Pac,   R,   Co.,   17 

Ont.  Rep.  65—1244. 
Curry  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R,  Co.,  68  Kan. 

6—1800. 
Curtis  v.  Avon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Bark. 

(N.  Y.)    148—1351. 
Curtis  V,   Central   R.   Co.,   6   McLean 

(U.    S.),    401—1211,    1261, 
Curtis    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    18 

Wis.  312—351. 
Curtis   V.   Delaware,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   74 

N.    Y.    116—450,    950,    1298,    1346, 

1352,   1353,   1375. 
Curtis    V.    Detroit,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    2T 

Wis.  158—1624. 
Curtis  V.   Rochester,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   18 

N.  Y.  534—  1084,  1106,  1118,  1120, 

1131,   1486,  1501.   1511,   1512,   1533, 

1703,  1715,  1716. 
Curtis   V.   Pvoclioster,   etc..   R.   Co.,  20 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    282—1715. 
Curtis  V.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  151  N.  C. 

.523—1538. 
Gushing  V.  Breck,  10  N.  H,  111—116, 

280. 
Gushing  v.  Breed,   14  Allen    (Mass.),. 

376—267. 
Gushing  V.  Wells,  9S  Mass.  550 — 583. 
CiitHifT  V.  Birniiiijrhnm  Ry.  etc.,  Co,, 

148  Ala.   108— 1I1S6. 
Cufl'-r  V.  Rae,  7  How.   (U.  S.),  729— 

042. 


Ixxviii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are   to   the   pages.) 


Cutler  V.  Winsor,  23  Mass.   (6  Peck.) 

:V^o — 7G,  203G. 
Ciittor  V.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  237  IH. 

247—513. 
Cutting    V.    Florida    R.,   etc.,   Co.,   30 

Fed.  003—1784.  1823. 
Cutting   V.   Florida    Ry.  &  Nav.   Co., 

40  Fed.  641—1852. 
Cutting  V.   Grand   Trunk   R.   Co.,    13 

AUon    (Mass.),  381—597,   G03. 
Cutts   V.   Boston    Flee.   Ry.    Co.,   202 

]Mass.  450 — 1575. 
Cutt3   V.   Brainera,  42   Vt.   50G— 459, 

740,  756. 
Curler   v.   Docker,   20   Hun    (N.   Y.), 

175—1581. 
C.  W.  Elphicke,  122   Fed.  439-1998. 

D. 

Daibney  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  140 
111.   App.  2G9— 1197. 

Da<rsett  V.  Shaw,  3  Mo.  264—27. 

Dagnall  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  69  S. 
C.  110—1024,  1720. 

Dahl  V.  Railway  Co.,  62  Wis.  655— 
1646. 

Dahlberg  v.  Minnesota  St.  R.  Co.,  32 
Minn.  404—1657. 

Daily  v.  New  York,  etc..  R.  Co.,  32 
Conn.  356—1502. 

Dakin  v.  Oxley,  15  C.  B.  N.  S.  646— 
164,  650. 

Dale  V.  Brooklyn  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 
Hun   (N.  Y.)    146-^1716. 

Dale  V.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  N. 
Y.  468—1556.  1656. 

Dalgarno  v.  American  Sugar  Refin- 
ing Co.,   108   Fed.  87—2004. 

Dallas  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  144 
Kv.   737—951,   1682. 

Dallas  Citv  R.  Co.  v.  Beeman,  74  Tex. 
291—1131,  1552. 

Dallas  Consol.  FAvc.  R.  Co.  v.  Broad- 
hurst   (Tex.),  68  S.  W.  315—1487. 

Dallas  Consol.  Elec.  R.  Co.  v.  Broad- 
hurst.  28  Tex.  Civ.  App.  630—1216. 

Dallas  Consol.  Elec.  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Gil- 
more  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  113  S.  W. 
1138—1147,  1276. 

Dallas  Consol.  Elec.  St.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Lasch  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  99  S.  W. 
729—1667. 
Dallas  Consol.  Elec.  St.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Rpttit  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  103  S.  W. 
42—1172. 


Dallas  Consol.  Tract.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ran- 
dolph   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  27   S.  W. 
925—1580. 
Dallas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spicker,  61  Tex. 

427—1082,  1545. 
Dallenbach   v.    Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co., 

104  111.  App.  310—140. 
Daly  V.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Co.,  145 

Wis.  249—993,   1440. 
Dambman  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 

180  N.  Y.  384—1681. 
Damont  v.  New  Orleans,  etc..  R.  Co., 

9  La.  Ann.  441—1676. 
Dampan  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  166 

Pa.  St.  520—1475. 
Dana  v.  Fiedler,  12  N.  Y.  40—588. 
Dana  v.  New  York  Cent.   R.  Co.,  50 

How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  428—753. 
Danciger  v.  Pacific  Express  Co.,   154 

Fed.  379—121. 
Danciger  v.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,   154 

Fed.   379—121,  262,   1878. 

Daniel  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.,  67 

Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    78—994,   1420. 

Daniel  v.  North  Jersey  St.  Rv.  Co.,  64 

N.  J.  Law  (35  Vroom)  603,  46  AtL 

625—1137. 

Daniels  v.  Ballentine,  23  Ohio  St.  532 

—373. 
Daniels   v.    Florida    Central,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,  02  S.  C.  1,  11—1024,  1176. 
Danville,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v.    Stewart,   2 

Mete.    (Ky.)    119—1269. 
Danziger  v.  Interborough  Rapid  Tran- 
sit Co.,  104  N.  Y.  Supp.  845—1178. 
Daoust  &  Welch  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  149  Iowa,  650—365. 
Da   Ponte   v.   New   Orleans   Transfer 

Co.,  42  La.  Ann.  696—112. 
D'Arc  V.  London,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

9   C.  P.   325—343,  4.59,  460. 
D'Arcy   v.    Adams    Express    Co.,    162 

Micii.  363—509. 
D'Arcy   v.   Westchester   Elec.   R.   Co., 

82  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   263—1486. 
Dardaneile   Pontoon   Bridge   &   Turn- 
pike  Co.   V.   Croom    (Ark.)    129   S. 
W.  280—78. 
Darling  v.  Boston  &  W.  R.  Corp.,  11 
Allen    (Mass.)    295—739,  759,  763, 
776,  781. 
Darling  v.  Younker,  37  Ohio  St.  493 

—10. 
Darlinirton  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Rv.  Co., 
99  IMo.  App.   1—627,  689,  691.  702. 
Darlington     County     Fair     Drawing 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references  are  to   the   pages.) 


Ixxix 


Ass'n  V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

90  S.  C.  790—866. 
Darlington    Lumber    Co.   v.   Missouri 

Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  216  Mo.  658. 
Darnana   v.   La   Compagnie    Generale 

Transatlantique,    114    N.    Y.    Supp. 

118—2040. 
Darrall  v.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  47  La. 

Ann.   1455 — 1993. 
Dart  V.  Ensign,  2  Lans.    (N.  Y.)   383 

—693. 
Darwin  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 

S.  C.  531—1042. 
Davenport  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  10 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  47 — 576. 
Davenport  Nat.  Bank  v.  Homeyer,  45 

Mo,  145—233. 
Davey  v.  Greenfield,  etc.,  St.  Ry.,  177 

Mass.  106—975. 
Davey   v.   Greenfield   St.   R.   Co.,    175 

Mass.   181—984. 
Davey  v.  Mason,  41  E.  C.  L.  30—186. 
David  V.  Central  Vermont  R,  Co.,  66 

Vt.  290 — 430. 
Davidson  v.  City  of  Portland,  69  Me. 

116—1600. 
Davidson  v.  Cornell,  132  N.  Y.  228— 

1561. 
Davidson   v.    Cunard    S.    S.   Co.,    134 

App.  Div.  288—1382. 
Davidson  v.  Graham,  2  Ohio  St.  131 

— 425,  427,  433,  457,  1450. 
Davidson  v.  G^vynne,   12  East  381 — 

33. 
Davidson  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  164 

111.  App.  47—955. 
Davidson   Development  Co.  v.   South- 
ern R.  Co.,  147  N.  C.  503—347,  598, 

622. 
Davidson  S.  S.  Co.  v.  119,  254  Bush- 
els of  Flaxseed,  117  Fed.  283—2028. 
Davies  v.  Mann,  10  Mees  &  VV.  (Eng.) 

546—58. 
Davies  v.  Pere  Marquette  R.  Co.,   10 

I.  C.  C.  Rep.  40.5—1959. 
Davine  v.   Chicago   City   R.   Co.,    162 

111.  App.  243—955. 
Davis  v.   Atchison,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.,   81 

Kan.  505,   1469. 
Davis  V.  Atlanta  &  C.  A.  L.  R.  Co., 

83  S.  C.  66—1483. 
Davis  V.  Button,  78  Cal.  247 — 41,  43, 

944. 
Davis  V.  Cayuga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  How. 


Pr.    (K   Y.)    330—973,   935,    1297, 

1345,  1347. 
Davis  V.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.,  66 

Vt.  290—373,  415,  459,  469. 
Davis  V.  Chautauqua  Lake,  etc..  As- 
sembly, 41  Hun   (N.  Y.)    638—257. 
Davis  V.  Chesapeake  &  O.  R.  Co.,  29 

Ky.  Law  Rep.  53 — 1053. 
Davis  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Fed. 

543—1064. 
Davis  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  Iowa, 

744—1330. 
Davis  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  Wis, 

470—1124,  1451. 
Davis  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Wis.. 

175—1238. 
Davis   V.   Cincinnati,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    1 

Disney    (Ohio)    23—619. 
Davis  V.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   146 

Fed.  403—1752. 
Davis  v.  Crisham,  213  Mass.  151 — 86. 
Davis  V.   Garrett,   6   Bing.   716 — 134. 

359. 
Davis  V.  Gwynne,  57  N.  Y.  677—391. 
Davis  V.  Jacksonville,  etc..  Line,  126 

Mo.  69—344,  754,  762. 
Davis  v.  Kansas  Citv,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 

Mo.  317—1265,  1398. 
Davis  V.  Kansas  City  Ry.  Co.,  46  Mo^ 

App.   189—1544. 
Davis   V.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   6&' 

Miss.    136—1576,    1661,   1662. 
Davis   V.   Michigan,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    22 

111.  278—1292,  1295,  1345,  1363. 
Davis  V.  Michigan  Southern,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  20  111.  412—380. 
Davis  V.  Mobile  &  0.  R.  Co.,  194  Fed. 

374—723. 
Davis   V.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    1 

Hilt.   (N.  Y.)   .543—581. 
Davis  V.  North  Western  R.  Co.,  4  Jur.. 

N.  S.  1303—611. 
Davis  V.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Ore. 

172—152. 
Davis  V.  Paducah  Ry.  &  Light  Co.,  24 

Kv.    Law    Rep.    135—1216,     1486, 

15.34. 
Davis  V.  Railway  Co.,  93  Wis.  470 — 

1033. 
Davis  V.  Taft  Vale  R.  Co.,  64  L.  J.  Q. 

B.   (N.  S.)   488—158. 
Davis  V.  Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.,  91  Tex. 

50.')— 149. 
Davis  V.  Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ» 

App.),  133  S.  W.  295—298. 


Ixxx 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  roforouccs  are  to  the  pages.; 


Davis  V.  Uniteti  States,  104  Fed.   13G 

—1944.   1058. 
Davis  V.  Wabash,  etc..  U.  Co.,  89  Mo. 

340.  2C  Aiii.  v^  Vamx.  II.  Cas.  59—23, 

27,  372,  .'J70,  574.  5S2. 
Davis   V.    Waltash    Rv.    Co.,    122   Mo. 

App.  037— S78,  925. 
Davis    &    Brandon    v.    Seaboard    Air 

Line  Ky.,  130  Ga.  278—206. 
Davis  &  Hooks  v.  Athmtic  Coast  Line 

R.  Co.,  145  N.  C.  207—250. 
Davis  Bros.  v.  Blue  Ridge  Ry.  Co.,  81 

S.  C.  4()0— 86(5,  899. 
Davis  Clotliing  Co.  v.  Merchants'  De- 

spatcli    Jrausp.   Co.,    106  Mo.   App. 

487—773. 
Davis  Hotel  Co.  v.  Piatt,  172  Fed.  775 

—705. 
Dawlev   v.    Wagner    Palace   Car    Co., 

169  "Mass.  315—64,  65. 
Dawson  v.   Boston,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    156 

Mass.   127—1608. 
Dawson   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   79 

Mo.  296 — 136,  342,  343,  457. 
Dawson    v.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

<Kv.).  11  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  134 
— l'l75,     1225,     1706,     1716,     1718, 
^     1722. 
Dawson  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 

H.  &  N.  1037—1505. 
Dawson  v.  Manhattan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 

L.  T.  N.  S.  682—1501. 
Dawson  v.   Marvland   Elec.   Rys. 

(Md.),  86  Atl.  1041—1629. 
Dawson  v.   Quincv,  etc..  R.   Co.,   138 

Mo.  App.  365—597,  602,  865. 
Dawson  v.   Shaver,   1   Blackf.    (Tnd.) 

204 — 1891. 
Dawson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76 

Mo.  514—481,  822. 
Dawson  v.   St.  Louis  Transit    (Mo.), 

76  S.  W.  689—1680. 
Day  V.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  12  Hun 

(N.  Y.)    4.3.5 — 1644. 
Day    V.    Highland    St.    Ry.    Co.,    135 

Mass.  113—1600.    . 
Day  V.  Owen,  5  Mich.  520—1068,  1070, 

1131,   1143. 
Day  V.  Ridley,  16  Vt.  48—27,  569. 
Daylight  Burner  Co.  v.  Odlin,  51  N. 

H.  56—264. 
Deake  v.  United  States  Express  Co., 

172  Mich.  451—824. 
Dean  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Wis. 

305—583. 


Co. 


Dean   v.   Chicago,   G.   R.   Co.,  64   IlL 

App.   165—49. 
Dean  v.  King,  22  Ohio  St.   118—229. 
Dean  v.  Vactaro,  2  Head   (Teun.)  490 

—198,  207,  381,  398,  582. 
Deardcn  v.  San  Pedro,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33 

Utah   147—1492,   1497. 
Deatrick  v.  Lake  Erie  &  W.  R.  Co., 

164  111.  App.  34—976. 
De   Barry    Baya   Mereliants    Line    v. 

Jacksonville,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  40  Fed. 

392—717. 
Debbins   v.    Old    Colony   R.    Co.,    154 

Mass.  402-1691. 
De   Board  v.   Camden   Interstate   Ry. 

Co.,  62  W.  Va.  41—1415. 
De  Cesso  v.  Connecticut  Co.,  85  Conn. 

707—1090. 
Decker  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Okl. 

553—1073. 
Decuir   v.   Benson,   27    La.   Ann.    1 — 

1143. 
Deggs  V.  American  Express  Co.,  2  Mo. 

App.  Rep.  904—570. 
De  Glopper  v.  Nashville  Ry.   L.   Co., 

123  Tenn.  633—1136. 
Deierling  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  163  Mo. 

App.  292—929. 
De  Kay   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   41 

Minn.  178—1013,  1014,  1690. 
De   La   Grange   v.   Southwestern   Tel. 

Co.,  25  La.  Ann.  383—91. 
Delamatyr  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

24  Wis.  578—1232,  1665,  1673. 
Dolaney  v.  Hilton,  50  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 

.341—1556. 
Dclaney  v.  United  States  Express  Co., 

70  W.  Va.  502—348,  508. 
Delaware  v.   Delaware,   etc.,  Tel.  Co., 

47   Fed.  Rep.   633—95. 
Delaware    &   H.    C.    Co.   v.    Common- 
wealth  (Pa.),  2  Int.  Com.  Rep.  222 

—1852. 
Delaware  &  Hudson  Co.  v.  Yarrington, 

152    Fed.   396—1050. 
Delaware  Bank  v.  Smith,  1  Edm.  Sel. 

Cas.  (N.  Y.)   351—283. 
Delaware,    etc..    Canal    Co.     v.     Law- 
rence,  2  Hun    (N.  Y.),    163—1731. 
Delaware,  etc..  Canal  Co.  v.   Webster 

(Pa.),  6  Atl.   841—1679. 
Delaware,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Aahlov.   67 

Fed.  209—1030,  1265,  1449,  1457. 
Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co,  v.  Daily,  37  N„ 

J.  L.  256—1213. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


l-gyyi 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frank,  110 

Fed.  689—1029. 
Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Interstate 

Commerce     Commission,     166     Fed. 

498—1868. 
Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kutter,  147 

Fed.  51—1804. 
Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Napheys,  90 

Pa.  St.   135—1476,  1477,   1511. 
Delaware,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Trautwein, 

52    N.   J.   L,    169—29,    1137,    1232, 

1599. 
Delaware,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Walch,   47 

N.  J.  L.  548—1711. 
Delaware   State   Grange,   etc.   v.   New 

York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Int.  Com.  Rep. 

554—1782,  1783. 
De  Leon  v.  McKernan,  25  Misc.  Rep. 

(N.  Y.)   182—606,  1708. 
De    Lisle  v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,   R.    Co., 

149  Mo.  App.  8—597,  865. 
De  Long  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

Hun   (N.  Y.),  282—1568. 
De  Mahv  v.  Morgan's  La.  R.,  etc.,  Co., 

45  La.  Ann.  1329—1562.  1638. 
De  Menaeho  v.  Ward,  23  Blatchf.   (U. 

S.)   505—161. 
Deming   v.   Chicago,    etc.,   R.   Co..    80 

Mo.  App.   152—1245. 
Deming   v.   Grand   Trunk   R.   Co.,   48 

N.  H.  455—145,  350,  540.  543,  617. 
Deming    v.    Merchants'    Cotton-Press, 

etc..   Co.,   90    ienn.   306—180,    190, 

415,   439,   458,   518,   520,   552,   571, 

13.30. 
Deming   v.   Norfolk,   etc.,   R.   Co..   21 

Fed.  25— 730.  765,  771,  776,  780. 
Deming   v.   Norfolk,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    17 

Phila.    (Pa.)    540—774. 
Deming  v.  The  Rapid  Transit,  52  Fed. 

320—1991. 
De  Mott  V.   Larawav.   14   Wend.    (N. 

Y.)    22.5—27,  53,   196.  204. 
Dempster  v.  Oregon  Short  L.  R.  Co., 

37  Mont.  .335—1497. 
Denaby  laain  Colliery  Co.  v.  Manches- 
ter, etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  App.  Cas.  97— 

1795. 
Drnham  v.  Washincrton  Water  Power 

Co.,  3  St.  Rv.  Rep.  879—1214. 
Denison   &   S.   Ry.    Co.  v.   Carter,   98 

Tex.  196—1163. 
Denison  &  S.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Carter   (Te.K. 

Civ.   App.),  79  S.  W.  320—1253. 
Denison  &  S.  Rv.   Co.  v.  Craig   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  80  S.  W.  865—1691. 


Denman  v.   Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   52 

Neb.  140—247,  342. 
Denny   v.    Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    150 

Iowa,  460 — 1275. 
Denny  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  13 

Gray     (Mass.),    481—53,    80,    372, 

401. 
Densmore  Commission  Co.  v.  Duluth, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  101  Wis.  563—339,  573. 
Denton  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,   5 

El.  &  Bl.  860.  85  E.  C.  L.  860—350, 

413,  1227,  1260. 
Denver  &  R.  G.  R.  Co.  v.  Andrews,  11 

Colo.  App.  304—1086. 
Denver  &  R.  G.  R.   Co.  v.  Derry,  47 

Colo.    584—997,    1034,    1141,    1250, 

1594. 
Denver  &  R.  G.  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  50 

Colo.  187—1291,  1379. 
Denver    &    R.    G.    R.    Co.    v.    Ryan 

(Colo.),  28  Pac.  79—1543. 
Denver  &   R.  G.  R.  Co.  v.  Whan,  39 

Colo.  230—1468. 
Denver  City  Tramway  Co.  v.  Cowan, 

51   Colo. '64— 1133. 
Denver  Citv  Tramway  Co.  v.  Hill,  50 

Colo.  328—1001,  1521. 
Denver  Consol.  Elec.  Co.  v.  Simpson, 

21  Colo.  371—1508. 
Denver   Consol.    Tram.   Co.    v.     Rush 

(Colo.),  73  Pac.  664—1681. 
Denver,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Andrews,    11 

Colo.  App.  204—1122,  1124. 
Denver,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Atchison,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  110  U.  S.  670—733. 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cahill,  8  Colo. 

App.  158—44.  573. 
Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   De    Witt,    1 

Colo.  App.  419—246,  606. 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dwyer,  20  Colo. 

132—1065,  1562. 
Denver,  etc..  R.   Co.  v.  Fotheringham 

(Colo.),   68   Pac.   978—1489. 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frame,  6  Colo. 

382—613. 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hill,   13  Colo. 

35—638,   646. 
Denver,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Hodgson,    18 

Colo.   117—1211. 
Denver,     etc..     R.     Co.     v.     Peterson 

(Colo.),  69  Pac.  578—6.  549,  1461. 
Denver,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Pickard,  8  Colo. 

16.3—1581,   1613. 
Denver,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Roberts,  6  Colo. 

333—1345. 


Ixxxii 


TABLE  OF  OASES. 
(The   rcfiTi'iuH-s  are   to  the   pages.) 


Denver,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Wootlwanl.  4 

Colo.  1— ir.oi. 
Denver  Omnibus  &  Cab  Co,  v.  Oast, 

54  Colo.  17— l:?S2. 
Denver  Traniwivv  Co.  v.  Cloud,  G  Colo. 

App.  44r)— 1720. 
Denver    Trainwuv    Co.    v.    Owens,    '20 

Colo.  107—1237. 
Denver  Trunnvav  Co.  v.  Reid,  4  Colo. 

App.  53— 12n,  1487,  1542,  1543, 

1511G. 
De    Pulacios   v.   Rio   Grande,   etc.,   R. 

Co.   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  45  S.  W.  612 

—1043. 
Deposit  Co.  V.  Sollitt,  172  111.  222— 

102. 
Derosia   v.    Winona,   etc..   R.   Co.,    18 

Minn.  13.3— 3S5,  391,  394,  390. 
De  Rothschild  v.  Roval  Mail   Packet 

Co.,  7  E.vch.  734—519. 
De  Rozas  v.  ;Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 

13  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   200-1238. 
De  Rutte  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Tel.  Co., 

1   Daly   (N.  Y.)   547—87. 
Derwort   v.   Loomer,   21   Conn.   245 — 

427,  1131,  1132.  1211,  1452. 
De  Schamps  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R. 

Co.,    84    S.    C.    355!— 515. 
Deschamps  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R. 

Co.,  82  S.  C.  230-197. 
Deslions    v.    La    Coinpagnie    Generale 

Transatlantique,    210    U.    S.    95— 

2039. 
De  Soucey  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  15  N. 

Y.   Supp.   108-1504. 
De  Steiger  v.   Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

73  Mo.  3.3—589. 
Desure  v.  New  York  Cent,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

94  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  251—78. 
Detrich  v.  Metropolitan   St.  Ry.   Co., 

143  Mo.  App.  176—1482. 
Detroit  &  B.  C.  Rv.  Co.  v.  McKenzie, 

43  Mich.  609—686. 
Detroit   &   M.   R.    Co.    v.   Adams,    15 

Mich.  458—458. 
Detroit    Board    of    Trade    v.    Grand 

Trunk  R.  Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  Rep.  199 

—1796. 
Detroit,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Adams,    15 

Mich.    458—446. 
Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Curtis,  23  Wis. 

152—1220,  1241,  1608. 
Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Farmers',  etc.. 
Bank,  20  Wis.   122—419,  758,  768. 
Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Com- 


nicrce    Com.,    74    Fed.    803 — 1787, 

1791,    1793,    1797,    ISOO,    1828. 

Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Com- 

nuMce    Conunission,    74    Fed.    838— 

729. 

Detroit,  etc.,   II.  Co.  v.   .McKenzie.  43 

Mich.  609—606,  715,  736,  739,  781. 

Detroit,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Van  Steinburg, 

17  Mich.  99—1552. 
Detroit    Board    of    Trade    v.    Grand 
Trunk  R.  Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  Rep.  199 
—1794. 
De  Vane  v.   Atlanta,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  4 

Ga.  App.   136—990. 
Devereaux  v.  Buckley,  34  Ohio  St.  16 

—598. 
Devine   v.   Chicago   City   R.   Co.,    162 

111.  App.  24.3—949,  964,  1432. 
Devine  v.  Railroad  Co.   (Iowa),  69  N. 

W.  1042—1220. 
Devoy   v.   St.   Louis   Transit  Co.,   192 

Mo.  197-983. 
Dewald  v.  Railway  Co.,  44  Kan.  587 

—1518. 
De  Winter  &   Co.  v.  Texas  Cent.  R. 
Co.,   150  App.  Div.    (N.   Y.)    612— 
1903. 
Dewire   v.   Boston,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    148 

Mass.   343—987. 
De  Wolff  V.  Adams  Express  Co.,   100 

Md.  472—476. 

Dexter  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42 

N.  Y.  326—1292,  1293,  1297,  1298. 

Deyo  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  34 

N.  Y.  9—947,  1080,  1500,  1513, 

1541. 

De   Yoe    v.     Seattle   Electric   Co.,   53 

Wash.  588—1521. 
Diamond  Joe   Line  v.   Carter,   76   111, 

App.  470—408. 
Diamond  Match  Co.  v.  Ontonagon,  188 

U.  S.  82-1735. 
Dibble  v.  Brown,  12  Ga.  217—62,  75, 

1293,  1300,  1306. 
Dice  V.   Willamett  Transp.,   etc.,   Co., 

8  Or.  60—1013. 
Dicken  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Co.,  41   W. 

Va.  511—549. 
Dickens  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  1 

Keyes  (N.  Y.),  2.3—1225. 
Dickens  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co..  1 
Abb.  App.  Dec.  (N.  Y.)  504—1666. 
Dickerson  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co., 
187  Fed.  874—667,  1840,  1834, 
1884. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Ixxxiii 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.). 


Dickert  v.  Salt  Lake  City  R.  Co.,  20 

Utah  394—1218. 
Dickinson  v.  Port  Huron,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

53  Mich.  43—1098,  1099,  1627. 
Dickinson  v.  West  End  St.  R.  Co.,  177 

Mass.  305 — 10G6. 
Dickinson     v.     Winchester,     4     Cush. 

(Mass.)    114—83,  373. 
Dickman  v.  Williams,  50  Miss.  500 — • 

215. 
Dickson  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  13 

Q.  B.  Div.  176—99. 
Dickson   v.   Holiister,    123   Pa.   421— 

1718. 
Dickson   v.   Merchants'   Elevator   Co., 

44   Mo.  App.   498—215,  224. 
Diebold   v.    Pennsylvania   R.    Co.,    50 

N.  J.  L.  478—1019. 
Dieckmann  v.   Chicago  &  N.   W.   Ry. 

Co.,  145  Iowa,  250—973,  1483,  1578. 
Dietrich  v.  Fargo,  52  Misc.  R.  (N.  Y.) 

200—129. 
Dietrich   v.   Pennsylvania  R.   Co.,   71 

Pa.  St.  432—1015,  1010,  1027,  1078, 

1255. 
Diffenbach  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

5  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  91—1716,  1718. 
Di    Giorgio    Importing    &    Steamship 

Co.  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.    (Md.), 

65  Atl.  425—138,  142,  144,  304. 
Dilburn  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  150 

Ala.  228—1684. 
Dill  V.  South  Carolina  R.,  7  Rich  Law 

(S.  C),  158 — 42,  1.306. 
Dill   V.   The   Bertram,   Fed.   Cas.   No. 

3.910—1990. 
Dillard   v.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   2 

Lea    (Tenn.),    288—338,    419,   430, 

434,  1451,  1456. 
Dillaye  v.   New  York  Cent  R.  Co.,  2 

Alb.  L.  J.   (N.  Y.)   356—1145. 
Dillender  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co., 

149  Mo.  App.  331—138,  305. 
Dillingham  v.  Anthony,  73  Te.K.  47 — 

1147,  1167,  1187. 
Dillingham  v.  Fischl,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

546—269,    1833. 
Dillingham   v.   Russell,   73  Tex.   47— 

1724,  1725. 
Dillon    V.    Forty-second    St..    etc.,    R. 

Co..   28   App.    Div.    (N.   Y.)    404— 

1639. 
Dillon  V.  Manhattnn   R.  Co.,  49  Ilun 

(N.   Y.).   608—12.^6. 
Dillon   V.   New   York,    rtc.,    R.    Co.,    1 

Hilt.    (N.  Y.)    231—738,  748. 


Dimitt  V.  Hannibal,   etc.,  R.   Co.,  40 

Mo.  App.  654 — 1500,  1582. 
Dimmick  v.  Milwaukee,   etc.,  R.   Co., 

18  Wis.  471—405,  413. 
Dinnigan  v.  Peterson,  3  Cal.  App.  764 

— 1515,  1586. 
Dininny  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 

N.  Y.  540—1350. 
Direct   Nav.    Co.    v.    Davidson     (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  74  S.  W.  790—278. 
Distler  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  151  N. 

Y.  424—1613,  1677. 
Distler  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  78  Hun 

(N.  Y.),  252—1577. 
Dixon  v.  Brooklyn  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 

100  N.  Y.  170—1098,  1642. 
Dixon  V.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry-  Co.,  110 

Ga.  173—171,  182,  636,  659. 
Dixon    v.     Chicago,    etc.,    R.   Co.,    64 

Iowa,  531—344,  355,  359. 
Dixon   V.    Columbus,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    4 

Biss.   (U.  S.)    137—436,  751,  777. 
Dixon  V.  Great  Falls  &  0.  D.  Ry.  Co., 

38  App.  D.  C.  591,  598—973. 
Dixon  V.  Richelieu  Nav.  Co.,  15  Ont. 

App.  647—1299. 
Dixon   V.   Richmond,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   74 

N.  C.  538—750,  778. 
Dixon  V.   Yates,   27   Eng.  C.   L.   92— 

209. 
D.  Klass  Commission  Co.  v.  Wabash 

R.  Co.,  80  Mo.  App.  164—238,  357, 

456,  481,  493. 
Dlabola  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  134  N. 

Y.   585—1211. 
Doan  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Mo. 

App.  408—192,  456,  785,  905,  926, 

1458. 
Doane  v.    Russell,    3    Gray    (Mass.), 

382—649. 
Dobbin  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  56 

Mich.  522—272. 
Dobbins  v.   Little  Rock,   etc.,  R.   Co., 

79  Ala.  85—1411. 
Dobbins  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141 

N.  Y.  Supp.  637—140. 
Dobiecki  v.  Sharp,  88  N.  Y.  203—1601, 

1602. 
Dobsonv.  Duncan.  00  S.  C.  414 — 1667. 
Dobson  V.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

.')2  La.  Ann.  1127—1063. 
Dodge  v.  Boston,  etc..  Steamship  Co., 

148  Mass.  207—960,  973,  lOO.-),  1012, 

1013.  1213,  1235,  1571,  1665. 
Dddjre  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill 

Minn.  12.3—1924. 


Ixxxiv 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   rofiMoiioi'8   nre    to    tlio    }>a;,'i'».; 


Dodsun  V.  Grand  Trunk  H.  Co.,  7  Caii- 

Hda  L.  J.  N.  S.  2G[\ — «(>4. 
noorner  v.  St.  Uniis.  etc..  K.  Co..  140 

Mo.  App.  170— l'2!t4,   i:?S7. 
Doliorr  v.  Tlio   Etoiiii.   04    I\d.   880 — 

1S)!)4,  li>S!t. 
Oohortv  V.   Northern    Piu-.    K.   Co..  43 

Mont.  2!)4— i:?!tO. 
Dole  V.  N.  E.  Insiinmco  Co.,  88  Mass. 

373—324. 
Donaldson   v.    .T.   W.    Perry    Co.,    138 

Fed.  (•.43—2007. 
Donloji    liros.    v.    Southern    Pac.    Co., 

151  Cal.  703- .'>12,  803. 
Doniii'i^an  v.  Krhardt.   119  N.  Y.  4G8 

—1103. 
Donoho  V.   Metropolitan  St.   Ry.   Co., 

30  Misc.  R.   (N.  Y.)   433—1596. 
Donohoe  v.   London,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    15 

W.  R.  792—344. 
Donohue  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   348—1561. 
Donovan  v.  Greenfield,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co., 

183  Fed.  526—1195, 
Donovan   v.   Hartford   St.   R.   Co.,   65 

Conn.  201—925,  973,  975,   1509. 
Donovan  v.  Kansas  City  Elev.  R.  Co., 

157  Mo.  App.  649—1088. 
Donovan  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  26  Sup. 

Ct.  Rep.  91—1126. 
Doolan   v.   Midland   R.   Co.,  L.   R.   2 

App.  792 — 428.  466. 
Doolittle  V.   Southern   Ry.  Co.,  62  S. 

C.  130—1639. 
Doorman  v.  Jenkins,  2  Ad.  &  El.  256, 

—11. 
Doran   v.   Chicajjo,   etc..   R.   Co.,    154 

Iowa,  140—1110,  1485. 
Doran    v.    East    River    Ferry    Co..    3 

Lans.    (N.  Y.)    105—990. 
Dorff  V.  Brooklyn  H.  R.  Co.,  95  App. 

Div.    (N.  Y.)    82—1199. 
Dorr  v.  Crosstown  St.  R.  Co.,  106  N. 

Y.  Supp.  1122—1497. 
Dorr  V.  New  Jersev  Steam  Nav.  Co., 

11    N.   Y.    48.-)— 30,   424,   429,   433, 

460,    466,    1451.    1461. 
Dorr  v.  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co., 

4  Sandf.   (N.  Y.)    H.'S— 497. 
Dorrah   v.   Illinois   Cent.   R.    Co..    65 

Miss.    14—1225,    1237,    1702,    1710. 

1718. 
Dorrance  v.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  126  S.  W.  694— 

598,  621. 


Dorrance  &  Co.  v.  International  &  G. 

N.   U.  Co.,   103  Tex.  200—131,  589. 
Dorsett  v.   Atlantic   Ci>ast  L.  R.  Co., 

156  N.  C.  439—1420. 
Dorsey    v.    Ateliison,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    83 

Mo.  App.  528—990. 
Doss  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Mo. 

27—1060.    1_';U).    1283,   1678. 
Dotson  V.  i:rie  K.  Co.  (N.  J.),  54  AU. 

827—1601. 
Doty  V.  Strong,   1   Pin.    (Wis.)    313— 

20,  117,  lis.  153,  573. 
Dougan  v.  Cliamplain  Transp.  Co.,  56 

N.  Y.   1—1115,   1124,   1556. 
Dougherty  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137 

Iowa,  257—969. 
Dougherty  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86 

111.  467—1676. 
Dougherty   v.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co., 

9  Mo.  App.  484 — 1511. 
Dougherty  v.  Missouri  R.  Co.,  81  Mo. 

325—1237,  1264,   1478,  1487. 
Dougherty     v.     Yazoo,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

(Miss.),  36  So.   699—1661. 
Dough itt  V.   Louisville   &   N.   R.   Co., 

136  Ga.  351—1532. 
Douglass  V.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 

Mo.  App.  473—606,  838. 
Doughiss  V.  Peoples'  Bank,  86  Ky.  176 

—217,  218,  219. 
Douglass   Co.   V.   Minnesota   Transfer 

R.  Co.,  62  Minn.  288 — 494. 
Dow   V.   Portland   Steam   Packet  Co., 

84  Me.  490—570,  822,  905. 
Dow  V.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  App. 

Div.  (N.  Y.)  362—1032,  1456,1466. 
Dowd   v.    Albany    Rv.,    47    App.    Div. 

(N.   Y.)    202—1068. 
Dowd  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Wis. 

105—1000,   1283. 
Dowd  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  170 

\.  Y.  4.59—1535. 
Dowling  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  90  N.  Y.  671—1588. 
Downe^    v.    Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

28   W.  Va.   732—1071,   1572,   1627. 
Downey  v.  Hendrick,  46  Mich.  498 — 

1640,  1643. 
Downs    V.    Fromiont,    4    Oampb.    40 — 

463. 
Downs  V.  New  York  Cent,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

47  N.  C.  83—1559. 
Downs  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

Conn.   287—999.    141.5. 
Dows   V.  Greene,  24  N.  Y,  641—224. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Ixxxv 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


DowB  V.  Perrin,  16  N.  Y.  325—224. 
Dows  V.  Rush,  28  Barb.   (N.  Y.)    157 

—224. 
Doyle  V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   126 

Fed.  841 — 490. 
Doyle  V.  Central  R.  C.  of  N.  Y.,  45 

Pa.    Super.    Ct.   216—1342,    1387. 
Doyle  V.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  162  Mass. 

66—1064,  1066,  1465. 
Doyle    V.    Kansas    City,   etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Mo.),  95  S.  W.  200—1059. 
Doyle    V.    Kiser,    6    Ind.    242—1291, 

1295,  1300. 
Doyle  V.  Lynn  &  B.  R.  Co.,  118  Mass. 

195—1600. 
Drake  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.,  24 

S.  D.   19—801,   854,  928. 
Drake  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   125 

Tenn.  627—1918. 
Drake    v.     Nashville,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

(Tenn.),  148  S.  W.  214—120,  1904. 
Drake  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  137  Pa. 

St.  352—1071,  1557,  1664. 
Drake  v.  United  States  Express  Co., 

87  111.  App.  505—339. 
Draper  v.  Delaware,  etc..  Canal   Co., 

118  N.  Y.  118—384,  392,  396,  403, 

578. 
Dresback   v.   California   Pac.   R.    Co., 

57  Cal.  462—256,  756,  774. 
Dresser  v.  Bosanquet,  4  B.  &  S-  460 — 

16. 
Dr«.sseT  v.  West  Virginia  Transp.  Co., 

8  W.  Va.  55.3—616. 
Dres«lar   v.   Citizens'   St.   R.    Co.,    19 

Ind.  App.  383—1476. 
Drew  V.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  51  Cal. 

425—1014,  1070. 
Drew  v.  Red  Line  Transp.  Co.,  3  Mo. 

App.  495 — 457. 
Drew  v.  Si.xth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  26  N.  Y. 

49—975,  1246,  1248. 
Dr.-w  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  129  Mo.  App. 

459—1440. 
Driggs  V.  Interborough  Rap.  Tr.  Co., 

49  Misc.   R.    (N.  Y.)    621—1204. 
Drinkwater  v.   The   Brig.   Spartan,   1 

Ware    (U.   S.),    149—648. 
Drisooll  V.  Market  St.  R.  Co.,  97  Cal. 

.55.3—1692. 
Drogmund  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 

122  Mo.  App.  154 — 970,  1426,  1441. 
Drohan  v.  Lumber  Co.,  75  Minn.  251 

—536. 
DroRte  V.  Wabnsh  R.  Co.,   138  N.  Y. 

Supp.  20.3—228. 


Drummond  v.   Southern   Pac.   Co.,   7 

Utah,  118—1029. 
Dube  V.  Reg,  3  Can.  Exch.  147—1119. 
Du    Bois   V.  New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

110  N.  Y.  Supp.  996—1381. 
Du   Bose   V.   Atlantic   Coast  Line   R. 

Co.,    132   Ga.   587—957. 
Du   Bose   V.   Atlantic   Coast   Line  R. 

Co.,  81  S.  C.  271—1280. 
Dubuque,    etc.,   R.    Co.    v.    Richmond, 

19   Wall.    (U.  S.)    584—1230. 
Duchemin  v.  Boston  El.  Ry.  Co.,  186 

Mass.  353—975,  984. 
Dudley    v.    Camden    &    Phila.    Ferry 

Co.,  13  Vroom.   (N.  J.)    25—58. 
Dudley  v.  Front  St.  Cable  R.  Co.,  73 

Fed.  128—1240. 
Duff  v.   Budd,   3   B.   &   B.    177—197, 

211,   244. 
Duff  &  Alleghany  Valley  R.   Co.,  91 

Pa.  St.  458—1059. 
Duffy  V.  St.  Louis  Trans.  Co.   (Mo.), 

78  S.  W.  831—1681. 
Duffy  V.  Thompson,  4  E.  D.  Sm.   (N. 

Y.)    178—1293,   1295,   1296. 
Dufoit  V.  Gorman,  1  Minn.  301—633. 
Dufur  V.  Boston  &  M.  R.  Co.    (Vt.), 

53   Atl.    1068—1191. 
Dugan  V.  Blue  Hill  St.  Ry.  Co.,   193 

Mass.  431—1471. 
Duggan  V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  159 

Pa.  St.  248—1183. 
Duiney  v.  Wheeling,   etc.,  R.   Co.,  28 

Wis.  32—1580. 
Duke  V.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  166 

Mo.  App.   121—1415. 
Dukes   V.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    102 

Minn.  99 — 1049. 
Dulaney  &   Wharton  v.   Philadelphia 

&.  Ry.  Co.,  228  Pa.   180—536. 
Du  Laurans  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.  R.  Co., 
15  Minn.  49—1394,  1395,  1398,  1442. 
Duling  V.   Philadelphia,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

66  Md.  120—1070,  1227. 
Dun  V.  Seaboard,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Va. 

64.5—1642,  16.55. 
Dunbar  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.,  110 

Mass.  26—210,  235. 
Dunbar  v.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (S. 

C),  40  S.  E.  884—767. 
Dunbar   v.    Port   Roval,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

36  S.  C.  110-740",  758,  767. 
Duncan   v.   Atcliison,   otc..    R.    Co.,    4 

Tnt.   Com.   Rep.   38.5—18.50. 
Duncan    v.    Moiii    Cent.    R.    Co.,    113 
Fed.  508- 14(i5. 


Ixxxvi 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


('l'lu>   ri>firciu'os   mo   to   the   i)aj;;cs.) 


Diinli;im    v.    Boston,   otr.,    R.    Co.,    70 

-M<'.  llil— 3o7,  372,  55)7,  730. 
Diiuliiim   V.    Boston,   olc,    R.   Co.,    40 

Hun   (N.  Y.),  245— 3!)5. 
Dunlap  V.   Cliioago,  etc.,   R.   Co.,    143 

Mo.  App.  21.")— 1277. 
Dunlup  V.  Intvrnational,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

08     .Mass.     371—524,     1291,     1295, 

129S,  1300,   1301. 
Dunlap  V.  Xortliorn   Pac.   R.   Co.,  35 

Jlinn.  203 — 105S. 
Dunlap  V.  Steamboat  Reliance,  2  Fed. 

249—1505. 
Dunlav  v.  Traction  Co.,  18  Pa.  Super. 

Ct.  200—1582. 
Dunlop  V.   Edinburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   16 

Jur.  Pt.  2,  407—1200. 
Dunlop  V.  Munroe,  7  Cranch   (U.  S.) 

242-85. 
Dui:n  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  58  Me. 

187-1057,   1147,   1205,   1423,   1573. 
Dunn   V.    Hannibal,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    68 

Mo.  268-487,  580,  590,  732,  806. 
Dunn  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  (N.  J.), 

58  Atl.  164—1267. 
Dunn    V.    Pennsj-lvania    R.    Co.,    20 

Phila.  (Pa.)  258—1232,  1237,  1633, 

1672. 
Dunn    V.    Western    Union    Telegraph 

Co.,   2   Ga.   App.   845—94. 
Dunne  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   571— 1060,  1061. 
Dunne  &  Grace  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,   166  Mo.  App.  372—722,   1882. 
Dunphy    v.    Erie    R.    Co.,    42    N.    Y, 

Supp.  Ct.  128—1014,  1070. 
Duplan  Silk  Co.  v.  American  &  For- 
eign Marine  Ins.  Co.,  205  Fed.  724 

—1818. 
Dufont    de    Nemours    v.     Vance,     19 

How.    (U.    S.)     171—642. 
Dupseth  V.  Wade,  2  Scam.   (111.)    285 

—75,  76,  576. 
Dunson  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  3 

Lans.    (N.   Y.)    265—308,   372. 
Duntlev  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.    66  N. 

H.  263—494,  889. 
Dunton  v.  Allen   Line  S.  S.  Co.,   115 

Fed.  250 — 1122. 
Durgin  v.   American   Express  Co.,  66 

N.  H.  277—494,  528. 
Dusar   v.   Murgatroyd,    1    Wash.    (U. 

S.)   317—26,  584. 
Driven ick  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  57 

yfn.  App.  550 — 439,  815. 
Dwi^^ht  V  Brewster,   1   Pick.    (Mass.) 


50—19,  24,  02,  03,  77,  109,  110,  187, 

520,  OSS. 
nwineilo  V.  New  York  tint.,  etc.,   R. 

Co.,    120  N.  Y.    117— OS,   945,   948, 

1015,    1147,   1155,   1150,    llOS. 
Dwyer  v.  Auburn  &  S.  Elec.   R.  Co., 

131   App.   Div,  477 — 1074. 
Dwyer  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  75  Tex. 

572—208,  209. 
Dwyer  v.   Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Tex. 

707 — 220,   209,   274. 
Dyo  V.   Virginia   Midland   R.   Co.,  20 

D,  C.  03-1243. 
Dyo  V.  Virginia   Midland  R.  Co.,   19 

Wash.  L.  R.  309—1514. 
Dyer  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  71  N.  Y.  228— 

1209,  1581. 
Dyer  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  42  Vt. 

441—620,  651. 
Dyer  v.   Great  Northern  R.    Co.,   51 

Minn.  345—206. 
Dyer  v.  Railway  Co.,  43  Vt.  441 — 163. 
Dyke  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  113— 

448,  450,  451,  950. 
Dysart  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   122 
>ed.  228—1055. 


E. 

Eads  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  43  Mo. 

App.   536—1147,   1170. 
Eagan    v.    Maguire,    21    R.    I.    189 — 

1599. 
Eagen   v.   Jersey   City,  etc.,   Ry.   Co., 

74  N.  J.  L.  699—1694. 
Eagle  V.  White,  6  Whart   (Pa.),  505 

—41,   248,   2.52,   261,   343,   381. 
Eagle  Packet   Co.  v.   Defries,   94   111. 

598-1130,   1505. 
Eagle   White   Lead   Cb.   v.   Interstate 

Commerce     Commission,     188     Fed. 

256—1873. 
Eames  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R,  Co.,  63  Tex. 

600—1105. 
Earle    v.    Cadmus,    2    Daly    (N.  Y.), 

237—1333. 
Earnest  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149 

App.  Div.  330—1903. 
Earnest   v.    Southern    Express    Co.     1 

Woods     (U.     S.),     573—491,     523, 

1457. 
Eastern  Counties  R.  Co.  v.  Broom,  6 

Exch.  314 — 1184. 
Eastern  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  6  Exch.  314 

1150. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Lxxxvii 


(The  references   are   to   the   pages.) 


Eastern  R.  Co.  v.  Relief  F.  Ins.  Co., 

98  Mass.  420—546. 
Eastern  Rv.  v.  Littlefield    (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),   135  S.  W.    1086 — 869. 
Eastern  Ry.  of  New  Mexico  v.  Little- 
field,  154  S.  W.  543—938. 
Eastern    Ry.    Co.   of   New   Mexico   v. 

Montgomery   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  139 

S.  W.  885—1908. 
Eastern    Transportation    Line    Hope, 

95  U.  S.   (5  Otto)   297—56. 
East  Indian  Railway  v.  Kalidas  Mu- 

kerjee,  70  L.  J.  P.  C.  396—49. 
East   Line   &   R.   Co.  v.   Rushing,   69 

Tex.  306—1248. 
East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  64  Tex. 

615— 1G9,  189. 
East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rushing,  69 

Tex.   306—1219,    1241,    1262,    1.592. 
East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  65 

Tex.  167—1106,  1241,  1262. 
Eastman  v.  Association,  65  N.  H.  176 

—280. 
East  Omaha  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Godola,  50 

Neb.  906 — 49,   1215,   1647. 
Easton  v.  Dudley,  78  Tex.  236 — 145, 

149,  541. 
Easton  &  Co.  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  147  111. 

App.  594-596. 
East  Saginaw  City  R.  Co.  v.  Bohn,  27 

Mich.   503—996,    1094,    1253,    1595, 

1644. 
East  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wabash, 

etc.,  R.   123  111.  594—51,  387,  743, 

748. 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bayliss, 

75  Ala.  466—1270. 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brumly, 

5  Lea    (Tenn.)    401 — 430,  458,  744, 

767,  769. 
East  Tennessee,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Con- 
nor, 15  Lea   (Tenn.)   254—1673. 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dcaver, 

79  Ala.  216—1270. 
East  Tcnnps.see,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fleet- 
wood, 90  Ga.  2.3—1170. 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hale, 

85  Tenn.  69—584,  598,  838. 
East  Tennrssee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Herr- 

man.  92  Ga.  384—708.  927. 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holmes, 

97  Ala.  332—1673,  1678. 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hughes, 
92  Ga.  388—1577,  1680. 


East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hunt, 
83  Tenn.    (15  Lea),  261—626.  701. 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hvde, 
89  Ga.  721—1713. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Inter- 
state Com.  Com.,  181  U.  S.  1 — 
1830. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Inter- 
state Com.  Com.,  99  Fed.  52—1771, 
1830,  1877. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
son, 75  Ala.  596 — 454,  576,  582, 
794,  820,  906. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
son, 85  Ga.  497—588,  596,  600,  618, 
736,  743. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly, 
91   Tenn.  699—381,  396,  415,  582. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lock- 
hart,  79  Ala.  315— 1256,  1703,  1706, 
1709,   1710,   1719. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maloy, 
77  Ga.  237—1562. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maa- 
sengill,  15  Lea   (Tenn.)   328—1229. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mitch- 
ell, 11  Heisk  (Tenn.)  400—948, 
1214,  1477. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nelson, 
1  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  272—42,  117,136, 
343,  458,  744. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rogers, 
6  Heisk.   (Tenn.)    143—744. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stew- 
art, 13  Lea  (Tenn.)  432—571,  1476. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whit- 
tle, 27  Ga.  535—51,  793. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Win- 
ters, 85  Tenn.  240—1270,   1403. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wright, 
76  Ga.  .532—748. 

Eaton  V.  Central  R,  Co.,  62  N.  J.  L. 
7—1603. 

Eaton  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 
N.  Y.  382—959,  1021,  1055,  1058, 
1145,   1423,   1572. 

Eaton  v.  Neumark,  37  Fed.  375 — 267. 

Eaton  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12 
Mo.  App.  386—381. 

Eaton  V.  Wilmington  City  Rv.  Co.,  1 
Bovce  (24  Del.)  435—1100,  1536, 
1.548,  1585. 

Eaton  v.  Wilmington  Citv  R.  Co. 
(Del.  Super.),  75  Atl.  369—1087. 


Ixxxviii 


TABLE  Ol-   CAfciES. 


(The   lefcrciK'os   are   to   the   puycs.) 


Eiui    Clairo    Hoard    of     lia.lc    v.    Clii- 

i"a>jo,  ott'.,  K.  Co.,  4   Int.  Com.   Kop. 

().">— 1704.    17!>(>. 
Eberhardt  v.  Metropolitan  St.  Kv.  Co., 

0!)  App.  Div.    (M.  V.)    ,->()0— 1!>2;{. 
Eberts  v.  Detroit,  etc..  Rv..  ir)l  .Midi. 

2()l>— 1468,   1515. 
Echols   V.   Louisville,   etc.,   K.   Co.,   90 

Ala.  30(5— 5S_'.  .">84. 
Eckerd    v.    Chiiaj;o.    etc.,    R.    Co.,    70 

Iowa,   ;553 — lliHO. 
Eekert    v.    Peiinsvlvania    R.    Co.,    211 

Pa.  267—885.  " 
Eckstein    v.    Woobcrton,    111    N.    Y. 

Supp.  21—1381. 
EclitT    V.    Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    64 

Mich.   IDO— 987. 
Ecton   V.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    125 

Mo.  App.  223—811,  844. 
Eddy  V.  Rider,  79  Tex.  53—1068. 
Eddy    V.    Syracuse    Rap.    Trana.    Ry. 

Co.,   50   App.   Div.    (N.   Y.)    109— 

1435,  1721. 
Eddy  V.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  N. 

Y.  Supp"^  645—1416. 
Eddy  V.  Wallace.  49  Fed.  801—1232. 
Edgar   v.   Northern    R.   Co.,    11    Ont. 

Rep.  452—1677,   1680. 
Edgar    Lunilier   Co.   v.    Cornie    Staye 

Co.,  95  Ark.  440—105,  707. 
Mgerly   v.   Union   R.    Co.,   67   N.   H. 

312—1401,   1407,    1447. 
Edgerton   v.   New  York,  etc.,   R.  Co., 

39  N.  Y.  227—985,  957,  1057,  1145, 

1500,  1511. 
Edgerton  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

115  N.  C.  645—231. 
Edminson  v.  Baxter,  4  Hayw.  (Tenn.) 

112—582. 
Edmunds  v.  Hill.  133  Mass.  445—532. 
Edmunds     v.     Merchants'     Despatch 

Transp.  Co.,  13.'>  Mass.  283—210. 
Edniunson  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co., 

92  Fed.  824—66. 
Edsall  V.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  N. 

Y.  661—472,  518,   1330. 
Edson  y.  Weston,  7  Cow.   (N.  Y.)  278 

—328,  532. 
Edwards    v.    American    Express    Co., 

109  Me.  444 — 792. 
J]dwards  \.  Cheraw.  etc.,  R.  Co.,   32 

S.  C.  117—213,  261. 
Edwards  y.  Foote   (Mich.),  88  N.  W. 

404—1559. 


i;d\vards   V.   Leo.    147    Mo.   A|)p.   38— 

311,  828,  850,  865. 
ICdwards  v.  Loudon  &  N.  W.   R.  Co., 

L.  R.  5  C.  P.  445—1184. 
Edwards  v.  Manufacturing  B.  Co.  (R. 

1.),  61  Atl.  (146—1216. 
Edwards  v.  Maiiufaeturers'  Bldg.  Co., 

27  R.  I.  248—102. 
Edwards  v.  Siierratt,  1  East  604—130, 

523. 
Edwards  v.  'iodd,  1   Scam.    (111.)    462 

— ](;3.  050. 
Edwards   v.   Wliite  Line  Transit  Co., 

104  Mass.   159—37,  328.  329,  333. 
Eells  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Fetl. 

903—4.50,  454,  491,  517.   14.56. 
E.  E.  Teanzer  &  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.. 

Ry.  Co..    191    Fed.  543—1814. 
E.  E.  Taen/.cr  Co.  v.  Chicago,  R.  I.  & 

P.  R.  Co.,  170  Fed.  240—104. 
Egan  V.  A  Cargo  of  Spruce  Latli,  43 

Fed.  480—642. 
Egan  V.   Old   Colony  St.   R.   Co.,   19.". 

Mass.    1,59—1497. 
Eggerraont  v.  Cunard  S.  S.  Co.,  Lim- 
ited. 119  N.  Y.  Supp.   1110    (N.  Y. 

Mun.  Ct.)— 2040. 
Eichberg  v.   Central  of  Ga.   Ry.   Co.. 

109  Md.  211—507. 
Eickhof  y.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  77  111. 

App.   196—1487,    1046.   1664. 
Eidem  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  158  111. 

App.  82—1062. 
Eidson  v.  Southern   Ry.  Co.    (Miss.). 

23  So.  309—1439. 
Eikenburv  v.   St.   Louis  Tr.   Co.,   103 

Mo.  App.  442—1020. 
Ela  V.   American  M.  U.  Express  Co.. 

29  Wi^.  011-208. 
Elam  V.   St.  Louis,   etc.,  R.   Co.,    131 

Mo.  App.  115—311. 
Elam  V.   St.   Louis,   etc..   R.   Co.,    117 

Mo.  App.  453—311,  321. 
Elder    y.    International    Ry.    Co.,    68 

Misc.  R.  N.  Y.)   22—1073,  1422. 
]']ld ridge  y.  Boston  Elec.  Ry.  Co.,  203 

Mass.  582-1051. 
Eldrige   y.   Minneapolis,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

32  Minn.  253—1512. 
Electric   Car   Co.   v.    Carson,    98    Ga. 

052—1475,   1500. 
Elgin   City  R.  Co.  v.   Wilson.   .56  IlL 

App.  304—1475,  1480,  1500. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages. )^ 


Ixxxix 


Elgin,   etc.,   Ry.    Co.   v.   Bates   Mach. 

Co.,  200  ni.  636—128. 
Elgin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bates  Mach.  Co., 

98  111.  App.  311—128,  757,  766. 
Elgin,  etc.,  Traction  Co.  v.  Hench,  132 

111.  App.  535—1085,   1484. 

Eli  Hurley  &  Son  v.   Norfolk   &   W. 

Ry.  Co.,  OS   W.  Va.  471—200,   382. 

Elkina   v.   Boston   R.   Co.,    23   N.    H. 

275—20,   41,   42,   44,   72,    100,    186, 

542. 

Elkins  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   19  N. 

H.  337—524. 
Elkins  V.  Empire  Transp.  Co.,  81  Pa. 

St.  315 — 495. 
Ellet   V.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    76 

Mo.  518—1123,  1513. 
KUinger  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

153  Pa.  St.  213—1198. 
Elliot  V.   Wilmington   City    Ry.    Co., 
6     Pen     (Del.),     570—1520,     1548, 
1667, 
Elliott   V.    Brooklyn  Heights   R.    Co., 

Ill  N.  Y.  Supp.  358—1498. 
Elliott   V.   Newport,   etc.,    R.   Co.,    18 

R.  I.  707—1476,  1517,  1646. 
Elliott  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
33  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  861—1449,  1454, 
1463. 
Elliott  V.  Russc-ll,  10  Johns.    (N.  Y.) 

1—75,  319. 
Elliott   V.    Seattle,    etc.,    Ry.    Co.,    68 

Wash.  129—1649. 
Elliott  V.   Southern   Pac.  R.  Co.,   145 

Cal.  441—1444. 
Elliott  V.  Van  Buren,  33  Mich.  49— 

1533. 
Elliott   V.    Western,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    58 

Ga.  454—1034. 
Ellis  V.  American  Tel.  Co.,    13  Allen 

(Mass.),  232—87,  92. 
Ellis  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  Wis. 

645—1227. 
Ellis  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Wis. 

246—12.32. 
Ellsworth   V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  05 

Iowa,  98—985,  992,  1416. 
?:ilsworth  V.  Tartt,  26  Ala.  733—780, 

1360. 
Elmore  v.  Naugatuck  R.  Co.,  23  Conn. 

4.57—739,  757. 
Klmnro  v.  Sanrls.  .54  N.  Y.  512—1024, 

10'.'.'-,,    1070,    1558. 
FA   l';iHo  &  N.  E.  Ry.   Co.  v.  Landon 


(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  124  S.  W.  744— 
952. 
El  Paso,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lumley   (Tex. 
Civ.   App.),   120  S.   W.   1050—853, 
867. 
Elser   V.    Southern    Pac.    Co.,    7    Cal. 

App.  493—1400,  1416. 
Elvey  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  2  Int. 

Com.  Rep.  804—1792. 
Elwell  V.  Skiddy,  77  N.  Y.  282 — 525. 
Elwood  V.   Chicago   City   Ry.   Co.,   90 

111.   App.  397—1535. 
Elwood  V.   Connecticut  Ry.,  etc.,  Co., 

77  Conn.  145—1237. 
Elwood  Grain  Co.  v.  St.  Joseph  &  G. 

I.  Ry.  Co.,  202  Fed.  845—1811. 
Ely  V.  Ehle,  3  N.  Y.  506—529. 
Ely  V.  New  Haven  Steamboat  Co.,  53 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    207—398. 
Ely  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Mo. 

34—1556. 
Elzy  V.  Adams  Express  Co.,  141  Iowa, 

407—621. 
Emerson  v.  Burnett,  11  Colo.  App.  88 

—1562. 
Emerson     v.     Butte     Elec.     Ry.     Co. 

(Mont.),  129  Pac.  319 — 1481. 
Emerson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill 

Mo.   161—795. 
Emery   v.    Dunbar,    1   Daly    (N.   Y.), 

408—661,  662. 
Emery    v.    Ilersey,    4    Greenl.    (Me.), 

407—8,  265. 
Empire  State  Cattle  Co.  v.  Atchison, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  210  U.  S.  1—827. 
Empire  State  Cattle  Co.  v.  Atchison, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  135  Fed.  135—312,  321. 
Empire  Transp.  Co.  v.  Steele,  70  Pa. 

St.  18S— 219,  227. 
Empire  Transp.  Co.  v.  Wallace,  68  Pa. 

St.  302—134. 
Empire  Tran.sp.  Co.  v.  Wamsutta  Oil 
Kef.,  etc.,  Co.,  63  Pa.   St.   14 — 458. 
571. 
Enehcs  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135 

Pa.  St.  194—1598. 

Kngberman    v.   North    German   Lloyd 

S.   S.   Co.,   84  N,   Y.    Supp.   201— 

1333. 

Engesetiier  v.  Groat  Northern  R.  Co. 

65  Minn.   168 — 486,  881.  ' 

England    v.    Boston,   etc..    R.    Co.     153 

Mass.  490—1678,   1679. 
England  v.  International,  etc.,   R.  Co, 


xo 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  icfcrenccs   ure   to   the   pagca.) 


(Tox.    Civ.   App.),    73   S.   W.   '24— 
1419. 
Hnglehuupt   v.   Erie   R.   Co.,   209   Pa 

182—1227. 
Eii'^ler   V.    Intoriuitiimal    Uv.   Co.,    133 

App.   Div.    (N.   Y.)    059—1005. 
English   V.   Diliiwarc,  etc.,  C.  Co.,  66 

N.  Y.  454 — 126.  11.^1,  1425,  1435. 
English   V.    New   York   Cent.,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,   13S  N.  Y.  Supp.  830—1198. 
Enslev     v.     Detroit     United     Ry.    Co, 

(Mich.).  90  N.  W.  34—1502. 
Eno3    V.    Rhode    Island    Suburban    R 

Co.,  2S  R.  I.  201—1005,  1490. 
E.  0.  Standard  Milling  Co.  v.  Whit« 
Line    Cent.    Transit    Co.,    122    Mo 
25S — 110.  413,  571. 
Ephland  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  137, 

Mo    187-1101. 
Ephland  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  71 

Mo.  App.  507—1101. 
Eppendorf  v.  Brooklyn  City,  etc.,  R. 

Co..  09  N.  Y.   105-1015. 
Eppendorf   v.   Brooklyn,    etc.,   R.,    67 

N.  Y.  52—1241. 
E.  R.  Darlington  Lumber  Co.  v.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  210  Mo.  658— 
135. 
Erdman  v.  United  Rys.    (Mo.  App.), 

155  S.  W.   lOSl— 1485. 
Erie  &  P.  Dispatch  v.  Cecil,  112  111. 

180—608. 
Erie   Boatmen's  Transp.   Co.  v.   Gen- 
eral Supply  &  Construction  Co.,  139 
Fed.  755—2034. 
Erie   City,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Schuester, 

113  Pa.  St.  413—1587,  1589. 
Erie  Despatch   v.  Johnson,  87  Tenn. 

490—234.  277. 
Erie,  etc..  Dispatch  v.  Stanley,  22  111. 

App.  459—586. 
Erie,   etc.,   Transp.   Co.   v.   Dater,   91 

111.  195—433.  455.  463. 
Erie  R.  Co   v.  Littell,  128  Fed.  546— 

1419,   1426. 
Erie  R    Co.  v.  Lockwood,  28  Ohio  St. 
35S_419,  577,   579,   582,   589,  746, 
773.   774. 
Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Star  &  Crescent  Milling 

Co.,  162  Fed.  879—489. 
Erie  R.  Co.  v.  United   Statns    (C.  C. 

A.).  200  Fed.  400—811.  10S!5. 
Erie  P.  Co.  v.  Waite,  62  Misc.  R.  372 
—690. 


Eric   U.  Co.  V.  Wanaque  Lumber  Co., 

75  N.  J.  L.  878—1845. 
Erie  R.  Co.   v.  Wilcox,   84   III.  239— 
425.    42!l,    4:!3.    455,    403,    559,    743, 
700,   1452,   1400. 
Erskino  v.  Thames,  6  Miss.  371 — 196, 

234. 
Erwin  v.   Kansas,   etc.,  R.   Co.,    (Mo. 

App.),  08   S.  VV.   88—1221. 
Estes   V.   Denver  &  R.   G.   R.  Co.,  49 

Colo.  378—807. 
Estes  V.  Denver  &  0.  R.  G.  R.  Co.,  113 

Pac.   1005—421. 
Estes  V.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  N. 

Y.  Supp.  803—1302. 
Estill  V.  New  Y'ork,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   147 

U.   S.   591—592.    904. 
Etliorington    v.    Prospect   Park,   etc., 

R.  Co.,  88  N.  Y.  401—1081. 
Etliridge  v.   Central   of   Ga.   Ry.  Co., 

136  Ga.  677—131. 
Etson  v.  Fort  Wavne,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110 

Mich.  494—1470. 
Eureka   Springs   R.   Co.   v.   Timmons, 
51    Ark.    459—41,    43,    1088,    1121, 
1500. 
Euston   Co.   v.   Erie   R.   Co.,    147   111. 

App.  594-017. 
Evans  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   10  W. 

R.  559—251. 
Evans  v.  Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.,  76  Mo. 

App.  472—037. 
Evans  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  Ill  Masa. 

142—32.  33,  35.5,  822,  .823,  005. 
Evans  v.  Gale,  17  N.  H.  573—530. 
Evans   v.    Memphis,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   66 

Ala.  240—1423. 
Evans  v.  Rudy,  34  Ark.  385-58,  59. 
Evans   v.    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    11 
Mo.    Apn.    403-1028,    1702,    1710, 
1712,  1722. 
Evansville.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Androscog- 
gin IMills,  22  Wall.    (U.  S.)    594— 
753.  758,  705,  771,  772. 
Evansville,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Athon,   6 

Ind.  App.  295—68,   1241. 
Evansville.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnes,  137 

Ind    300—988. 
Evansville,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Baum,   26 

Ind.  70—1131,  1433. 
Evansville,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Gates,   14 

Ind.  App.   172—1416. 
Evansville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Darting,  6 
Ind.  App.  375—1166,   1189. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references   are  to  the  pages.; 


ZCl 


Evausville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Duiiean,  28 

Ind.  441—1235. 
Evansville  &  Q.  E.  Co.  v.  Gilmore,  1 

Ind.  App.   468—1433. 
Evansville,    etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Keith,   8 

Ind.  App.  57—180,  182,  184,  292. 
Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kevekordes 

(Ind.   App.),   69   X.   E.    1022—189, 

493,  521,  890,  90G,  931. 
Evansville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Kyte,    6 

Ind.  App.  52—1256. 
Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Marsh,  57 

Ind.  505—637,  675,  686. 
Evansville,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Mills,   37 

Ind.  App.   598—1037. 
Evansville.  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Montgom- 
ery, 85  Ind.  494—584. 
Evansville,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Smith,   65 

Ind.  92—785. 
Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  20 

Ind.   App.   5—1228. 
Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  28 

Ind.  516 — 427,  816,  1452. 
Everett  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   69 

Iowa,  15 — 1427. 
Everett     v.     Oregon,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    9 

Utah,  340—1057. 
Everett  v.  Saltus,  15  Wend.    (N.  Y.) 

474 — 649. 
Everett  v.  Southern  Express   Co.,  46 

Ga.   303—523. 
Everliart  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

78  Ind.  292—1066,  1287. 
Evershed,  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Q.  B. 

135—162. 
Evershed   v.   London,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   2 

Q.  B.  Div.  254—162,  255. 
Ewald    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    70 

Wis.  420—1063. 
Ewart  V.  Kerr.  1  Rich  L.   (S.  C.)  203 

—163,  626.  650. 
Ewart  V.  Street,  2  Bailey  (S.  C.),  157 

—27,  336.  571. 
Exchange  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Delaware  & 

Hudson  Canal  Co..  25  N.  Y.  Super. 

Ct.  (10  Bosw.)   180—79. 
Ex  parte  Attv.-Gen.,  17  N.  B.   (Can.) 

667—124. 
Ex  parte  Benson.  18  S.  C.  42 — 42. 
Ex   partf   Great   Western   R.   Co.,   22 

Ch.  Div.  470—0.30. 
Ex  parte  Kochler.  31  Fed.  315—1792, 

1829,   1S.14. 
Ex  parte  Knchler,  30  Fed.  867—1775, 


Express  Co.  v.  Kountze,  8  Wall.    (U. 

S.)    342—134.    1457. 

Exton  V.  Central  R.  Co.  of  N.  J.,  63 

N.   J.  Law,   356—980,  1191. 


F. 

Fadley  v.  Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co.,  153 

Fed.  514—1669. 
Fahr  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  9  Misc.  R. 

(N.  Y.)   57—1613. 
Fairbank  v.   Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

66  Fed.  471—520,  771. 
Fairchild  v.  California  Stage  Co.,  13 

Cal.  599—1129,   1488,   1512. 
Fairchild  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

148  Pa.  St.  527—307,  448,  771. 
Fairfax  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  73 

N.  Y.  167—1295,  1296,   1353,  1362. 
Fairfax  v.   New  York   Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  67  N.  Y.   11—570,  1349. 
Fairfax  v.  New  York   Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  37  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  516—1347. 
Fairfield  v.   County  of  Gallatin,   100 

U.  S.  47—389. 
Fair  ford   Lumber   Co.     v.    Tombigbee 

Valley  R.  Co..  165  Ala.  275—725. 
Fairmont,  etc.,  Pass.  R.  Co.  v.  Stutler, 

54  Pa.  St.  375—1237. 
Faison   v.   A'abama,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   69 

Miss.  569—778. 
Faith  V.  East  India  Co.,  4  B.  &  Aid. 

630—642. 
Falk  V.  NeAv  York,  etc.,  R,  Co.,  56  N. 

J.  L.  380—1124.  1232. 
Falke  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  38  App. 

Div.    (N.  Y.)    49—1494. 
Falkins  v.   Boston   Elev.   R.   Co.,   188 

Ma.ss.  153 — 1112. 
Falkne  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.,  106 

Minn.  64 — 864. 
Falkner  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Ind. 

309—1424. 
Fallon   V.   Central  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

64  N.  Y.  13—1587. 
Fall     River    &    M.    Co.    v.    Pullman 

Palace  Car  Co.,  4  Ohio  N.  P.  26— 

64. 
Falls  V.  San  Francisco,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  97 

Cal.  114—1247. 
Falvey  v.  Georgia  R.  Co.,  76  Ga.  597 

^1,  743. 
Falvey   v.   Northern   Transp.   Co.,    15 

Wis.   129— .549,  .'>78. 


zcu 


lAltLE  UF  CAttES. 
(The   rcfiTonoi'S   are   to   tlie   pages.) 


Fanning  v.  St.  Louis  S.  W.  U.  0<>.  of 

Toxas.  S  Tfx.  t'iv.  .\\>y>.  513— 100!». 

FarlHT   V.   Missouri   I';u\    U.    <«>..    13!) 

Mo.  272— 142.>. 
FivrbiT  V.    Missouri    Tac.    K.   Co.,    IIG 

Mo.  SI— lOUi,    107(>.    1147,   1280. 
Farewell   v.  Ciranil    Trunk   R.  Co..    l-> 

U.  C.  C.  P.  427—102(5. 
Fargo  V.  Miehigan.   121    U.   S.   230— 

1758. 
Faris  v.  Brooklyn  (,'itv  &  N.  R.  Co., 
46    App.    Div."    (N.    V.)    231—1216, 
1647. 
Farish  v.  Koigle,  11  (.Jratt   (Va.),  097 
—27,   607.    1107,    112!).    1133,    i214, 
1513,  1713,  1725). 
Farlev    v.    Chicago,    t't<'..    R.    Co.,    42 

Iowa,   234— 10S2. 
Farley  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108 

Fi^.   14—74.  !)46. 
Farlev  v.   Lavary,    107   Ky.   523—74, 

307'. 
Farley  v.  Norfolk  &  W.   Ry.  Co.,   67 

W.  Va.  350—1578,    1G86. 
Farley    v.    Philadelphia,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

132  Pa.  St.  58—1476,   1477. 
Farlow    v.    Kelly,    108    U.    S.    288- 

1099,  1267,   1656. 
Farmers'  &  Mechanics'  Nat.  Bank   v. 
Hawks    (Tex.    Ciy.    App.),    128,    S. 
W.  147—102. 
Farmers'      Bank      of      Laddoaia      v. 
Wabash  R.  Co.,   119  Mo.  App.   1— 
598,  902.  924. 
Farmers'   Bank  v.   Champlain   Trans. 
Co..  23  Vt.   186—36,   110,  425,  490, 
741,  768. 
Farmers'    etc.,    Bank    v.    Champlain 

Transp.  Co.,  18  Vt.  131—27,  459. 
Fanners'    etc..    Bank    v.    Champlain 
Transp.    Co.,    16   Vt.   52—257,   405, 
427. 
Farmers',  etc.,   Nat.   Bank   v.   Tjognn, 

74  N.  Y.  568—222. 
Farmers'  Loan  &  T.  Co.  v.  Northern 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  120  Fed.  873—147,  189, 
534,  738. 
Farmers'  Loan  &  T.  Co.  v.  Northern 

Pac.   R.   Co.,   83   Fed.   249—1760. 
Farmers'  Loan  &  T.  Co.  v.  Oregon  R., 

etc.,  Co.,  73  Fed.   1003 — 410. 
Farmington    Mercantile    Co.    v.    Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  116  Ma,ss.  154 — 
778. 
Farnliam  v.  T  amden,  etc.,  R.  Oo.,  55 


Pa.  St.  53—419,  428,  430,  49.5,576. 
578. 
Farnon   v.   Boston    &,   A.   R.    Co.,    180 

Mass.  212—1634. 
Farnsworth   v.  National   Express  Co.. 

166   Mich.  676—476. 
Farnsworth   v.   N»>w   York  Cent.,  ifU.. 

R.  Co.,  84  \.  Y.  Supp.  658—765. 
Farr  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  35  l. 

C.  Q.   B.  534—466,  895. 
Farr   &   Bailey    Mfg.   Co.   v.    Interna 
tional  Nav.  Co.,  98  Fed.  636—1997. 
1999. 
Farr   &   Bailey   Mfg.   Co.   v.   Interna- 
tional Nav.  Co.,  94  Fed.  675—1997. 
Far  rant  v.  Barnes,  11  C.  B.  N.  S.  553 

—128,  563. 
Farrar  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 

1   Int.  Com.  Rep.  764—1828. 
Farrar  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,   R.  Co.. 

52  La.  Ann.  417—1594. 
Farrell    v.    Great   Northern    Ry.    Co.. 

100  Minn.   361—1674. 
Farrell  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  C^.,  4  N. 

Y.   Supp.  598—1083. 
Farrell  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

N.  C.  390—199,  642. 
Farris   v.   Cass   Air,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   80 

Mo.  32.5—1588,  1591. 
Farwell    v.    Boston    R.    Co.,    4    Metr. 

(Mass.)    49—947. 
Farwell   v.   Davis,  66   Barb.    (N.  Y.) 

73—368. 
Fassett  v.   Ruerk,  3   La.   Ann.   694 — 

527. 
Fast  V.  Canton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  Miss. 

498—939. 
Fasy   V.   International   Nav.   Co.,    177 

N.  Y.  591—573. 
Fatman  v.  Cincinnati,  etc..  R.  Co.,  2 

Disney    (Ohio),  248—577,  770. 
Faucett   v.   Nichols,   64   N.   Y.   377— 

412. 
Faucher   v.   Wilson,   68   N.   H.   338— 

73,  74,  336. 
Faulk   V.    Columbia,   etc.,   R.   Co..    82 

S.  C.  369—515,  895. 
Faulkner  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mo. 

App.),  73  S.  W.  927— .539,  754. 
Faulkner    v.    Hart,    82    N.    Y.    413— 

384,  390,  .395. 
Faulkner  v.  Hart.  44  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 

471—47. 
Faulkner   v.   South.   Pac.   R.   Co.,   51 
Mo.  311—136,  138,  598. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


XCllL 


Faust  V.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  8  S. 

C.  118—330. 
Fay    V.    Davidson,    13    Minn.    523 — ■ 

1505. 
Fay  V.  Parker,  53  X.  H.  342—1720. 
Fay  V.  Steamer  New  World,  1  Cal.  348 

—6. 
Fayerweather     v.    Phoenix    Ins.    Co., 

118  N.  Y.  324—547. 
Fearn  v.  West  Jersey  Ferry  Co.,  143 

Pa.   St.   122—1262. 
Fearon   v.   Bowers,    1    Smith's   L.    C, 

792—218. 
Feary   v.    Metropolitan    St.    Rv.    Co., 

162  Mo.   75—1114,   1124,   12i7. 
Federal  St..  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gibson,  96 

Pa.  St.  83—1476,  1477. 
Feeback  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  167 

Mo,    206-1280. 
Fediber  v.  Manhattan  Dist.  Telegraph 

Co.,   21   Abb.   N    C.    (N.   Y.)    11— 

106. 
Feiber  v.  Manhattan  Dist.  Telegraph 

Co.,  4  N.  Y.  Supp.  555 — 106. 
Feiber  v.  Manhattan  Dist.  Tel.  Co.,  3 

N.  Y.  Supp.   116—106,  262,   265. 
Feige  v.   Michigan    Cent.    R.   Co.,   62 

Mich.    1—385,   429,   456,   488. 
Feil  V.  West  .It'rsev  *   S.  R.  Co.,  77 

N.  J.  Law  502—1491. 
Feinberg  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 

N.  J.   L.   451—798,   815,   819. 
Feital  v.  Middles(?x  R.  Co.,  109  Mass. 

398 — 1478.    1500,    1512,    1600. 
Feld  V.  Piatt,  107  N.  Y.  Supp.  21— 

1381. 
F«ld€r   V.   Columbia,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   21 

S.  C.  3.5—747,  779,  1360. 
Feldheim    v.    Brooklyn,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

122   App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    883—1492, 

1628. 
Feldschnoider  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

(Wis.),     99     X.     W."^   1034—1467, 

I486. 
Fell  V.  Xorthern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  44  Fed. 

248—1706,    1719,    1725,    1729. 
Fellows  V.  The  R.  W.  Powell,   10   La. 

Ann.  316—229. 
PVIton    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co..    69 

Iowa,  577 — 1190. 
Felton   y.   Chicago  C.   W.   R.   Co.,   86 

.Vfo.  App.  322-1353. 
Folton  V.   Clarkson,   103  Tonn.  457— 

832. 
Felton   V.  McCrearv,   etc.,   Livo   Stock 

Co.,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.   1058-908. 


Fenig  v.  New  Jersey  S.  Ry.  Co.    (N. 

J.),   46   Atl.   602—1239. 
Fenner  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  N. 

Y.    505—198     251,    252,     255,    384, 

392,  396,  398,  403,  405,  773,  775. 
Fentiman  v.  Atchison  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  455—311. 
Fenton   v.    Grand    Trunk   R.    Co.,   2a 

U.  C.  Q.  B.  367—1351. 
Ferguson  v.  Brent,  12  Md.  9—27. 
Ferguson    v.    Cappean,    6    Har.    &    J. 

(Mxi.)    394—291. 
Ferguson  v.   Citizens'   St.   R.   Co.,    16 

Ind.  App.    171—1188. 
Ferguson  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  144- 

Mo.  App.  262—1415,   1421,   1432. 
Ferguson  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  91  S. 

C.  61—316. 
Ferguson   v.   Truax,    132    Wis.   478 — 

959. 
Ferrin  v.  Myrick,  41  N.  Y.  315—47.. 
Ferry  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  118  N.  Y. 

497—1486. 
Fewings  v.  Mendenhall,  83  Minn.  237 

—1187. 
F.  H.  Smith  Co.  v   Louisville  &  N.  R. 

Co.,  157  Mo.  App.  160—590. 
Fibel  v.  Livingston,  64  Barb.   (N.  Y.> 

179—424,  425,   429. 
Fick  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Wis.. 

469—1149,   1167. 
Ficklin   v.    Wabash   R.    Co.,    117   Mo.. 

App.  221—787. 
Ficklin  &  Son  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  115- 

Mo.  App.  633—857. 
Fidelity  Lumber  Co.  v.  Great  North- 
ern Ry.  Co..  193  Fed.  924—1808. 
Field  V."  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  III. 

458—433,  743,  766,   1452. 
Field  V.  Newport,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  3   H. 

&  N.  409—651. 
Fielder  &   Turley   v.   Adams   Express 

Co..    69    W.    Va.    138— ,502.     1914, 

1916. 
Fields    V.    Metropolitan    St.    Ry.    Co. 

(Mo.  App.),  1.55  S.  W.  84.5— 
File     V.     Wilmington    City     Ry.     Co. 

(Del.  Super.),  7  Pen.    (Del.)    1657, 

SO     Atl.     523—1520.      1548,      1621, 

1049,  1667. 
Filer  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co..  49  N. 

Y.     47—1227.     1233.     12.36,     1242. 

1243,  1.598,  1077,  1679,  1680. 
Files  V.  Boston,  r^tc.  R.  Co.,  149  Ma^s. 

204—1043.  1577.  1027. 
Fillebrown    v.    Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.> 


XCIV 


TAULE  OIP  CASi:s. 
(The    roferciu'i's   are    to    tlie    im{,a'a.  I 


55  Mo.  4(12— '2C.,  42li.  428,  455,  577, 
1452.   145S. 
Fillin<;luiiii   v.   St.    Uniis  TnuisiL  Co., 

112    Mo.  App.  573— 9U8. 
Kink  V.  Allaiiv,  ok-.,   H.  Co.,  4  Liins, 

(N.  \.)    147—1410.  i<2l. 
Fink  V.  A»h.  09  Ga.  10(5—1425. 
Fink«'l(Kv  v.  Omnibus  CaWe  Co.,   114 

Cal.   28—974,    1(515,    1G18. 
Finlev    v.    Ihi.lson   Elic.   Ry.   Co.,   64 

Hun    (N.  v.).  373—1289. 
Finn  v.  IMiihulolphia,  oti-.,  R.   Co.,   1 

Houst.    (Dol.)    4G9— 103G. 
Finn  v.  ValU'v  City  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

SG  Midi.  74—1237. 
Finn  v.  Wi-stern  R.  t'orp.,   102  Mass. 

•j.S.l- 219,  22G,  559. 
Finno<i;in  v.  Cliicago.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48 

Minn.  378—1013,  1285. 
Finucane  v.  Small,  1  Esp.  N.  P.  315 

—411. 
Fireman's  Fund  Ins.  Co.  v.  Schrieber, 

150  Wis.  42—1149. 
First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Marietta,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  20  Ohio  St.  259—1295. 
Pirst  Nat.  Bank  v.  New  York  Cent., 
'       etc.,  R.   Co.,  85   Hun    (N.  Y.),   160 
—215.  221. 
rirst  Nat.  Bank  v.  North,  6  Dak.  141 

—1562. 
First    Nat.    Bank    v.    Northern    Pac. 
\       Ry.   Co.,   28   Wash.  439—215. 
First  Nat.  Bank  v.  San  Antonio,  etc., 
R.  Co.    (Tex.).  77  S.  W.  410—279. 
First  Trust  &  Savings  Bank  v.  South- 
ern Indiana  Ry.  Co.,  195  Fed.  330 
—1813. 
Fish  V.  Chapman.  2  Ga.  349—14.  22, 

''4    -'6    71,  77.  464,  1449,  1452. 
Fish   V.   Clark,  49  N.   Y.   122—4,    11, 

13,  54,  72. 
Fish  V.   Clark,  2  Lans.    (N.  Y.)    176 

—22,  23,  116. 
Fish    V.    Delaware,    ete..    R.    Co.,    141 

N.  Y.  Supp.  24.-)— 1472. 
Fischer  v.   Columbia,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  52 

Wash.  462—969. 
Fisher  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.  Co.,  99  Me. 

.338—763.  776. 
Fisher  v.  Clisber,  12  111.  344—60. 
Fisher  v.   Geddes,   15   La.  Ann.    14 — 

186,  1349. 
Fisher  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.,  49 

Wash.  20.5—1886. 
Fisher  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 
Ohio  C.  C.  491—178,  376,  378. 


Fisher  v.   Metropolitan    Elov.   R.   Co., 
•M   Hun    (N.   v.).  433— IIGG,    1713, 
1723,  1725. 
Fisher  v.  Northern  Pac.   Hy.   Co.,  49 

Wasli.  258—387. 
Fisher  v.   Railway  Co.    (W.  Va.),  24 

S.  E.  570—1506. 
Fisher    v.    Southern    Pac.    R.    Co.,   89 

Cal.  .399—1211. 
Fisiier  v.  Tryon,  1 5  Ohio  Civ.  Ct.  Rep. 

541—61. 
Fisher  v.  West  Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
39    W.    Va.    366—140,    1214,    1219, 
1595,  1637. 
Fishman    v.    Piatt,    90    N.    Y.    Supp. 

354—281,  607. 
Fisk  V.  Newton,  1  Den.    (N.  Y.)   45— 

198.   251,   259,   401,   404,   G30. 
Fiteh    V.   Ma.son    City,   etc.,   Tr.    Co., 

116  Iowa,  716-1212,  1479,   1554. 
Fitch  V.  Newberry,   1    Doug.    (Mich.) 

1—131,  633,  638,  651. 
Fitchburg   R.   Co.   v.   Gage,    12   Gray 

(Mass.),    393—161,    165. 
Fitchburg,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hanna,  72 
Mass.   (6  Gray)   539—83,  192,  375. 
Fitchburg  R.  Co.  v.  Nichols,  85  Fed. 

954—1543,  1607. 
Fitchburg  R.  Co.  t.  Tudor,  78  Mass. 

(12   Gray)    399—660. 
Fitzgerald  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  24 

Ind.  447—128. 
Fitzgerald  v.  Burrill,   106  Mass.  446 

—85. 
Fitzerald   v.  Grand  Trunk  R.   Co.,  4 

Ont.  App.  601—428,  430. 
Fitzgerald  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  27 

U.  C.  C.  P.  528—437. 
Fitzgerald    v.    Grand   Trunk    R.    Co., 

63  Vt.  169-157,   160,   1785. 
Fitzgerald  v.  Midland  R.   Co.,   34  L. 

T.  N.  S.  771—1228,   1259. 
Fitzgiblx>n   v.   Chicago  &  N.   W.   Ry. 

Co.,  119  Iowa.  261—971. 
Fitzeil)l)on    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

108   Iowa,  614—1021. 
Fitzmaurice  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

192  Mass.  159—986. 
Fitzpatrick   v.    Bloomington    City   R. 

Co.,  73  111.  App.  516—1553. 
Fitzpatrick   v.    Cusack,    12   L.    C.   R. 

306—630. 
Flagg  V.  Manh-attan  R.  Co..  49  N.  Y. 

Su|)€r.  Ct.  251—1125. 
Flahertv  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
39  Minn.  326—1269. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


XC7 


(The  references   are   to   the   pages j 


Flanagan  v.  Met.,  etc.,  K.  Co..  31  Misc. 

Rep.    (X.  Y.)    820—1239,  1241. 
Flaniigan  v.  Xew  York,  etc.,   K.   Co., 

55  Hull    (X.  Y.),  611—1233,   1236. 
Flannery  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Mivckey    (D.    C),    111—1189. 
Flautt  V.  Lashley,  36  La.  Ann.  100— 

54. 
Fleck  V.  Union  R.  Co.,  134  Mass.  480 

—1645. 
Fleischman,  Morris  &  Co.  v.  Southern 

Ry.,  76  S.  C.  237—1382,  1354. 
Fleming  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  74 

N.  Y.  618—1019. 
Fleming  v.  Kansas  Citv,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

89  Mo.  App.  129—105,  1267. 
Fleming  v.  Mills,  5  ]\Iich.  420—118. 
Fleming   v.    Pittsburg}),    etc.,    R.    Co., 

158   Pa.  St.   130—1476,   1477,   1504. 
Fleming  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  R.  Co.,  101 

Mo.  App.  217—1202. 
Fletcher   v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    1 

Allen    (Mass.),   9—1263. 
Fletcher  v.   Fletcher,   7  N.   H.   452— 

280,  281. 
Flick  V.  Union  R.  Co.,  134  Mass.  481 

—1641. 
Flinn     v.     Philadelphia     R.     Co.,     1 

Houst.  (Del.)  469—454,  1450,  1452, 

1458,   1467. 
Flint  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  N.  H. 

141—797. 
Flint  V.   Christall,    171   U.   S.    187— 

1986,  2036. 
Flint   V.    Norwich,   etc.,   Transp.    Co., 

34    Conn.    554—1140,     1147,     1186, 

1194. 
Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stark,  38  Mich. 

714—1231,  1237. 
Flint,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Weir,  37  Mich. 

111—1031,   1306,   1372. 
Flood  V.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25 

Kv.  L,  R.  213.5—1390. 
Florida  Cent.  &,  P.   R.   Co.  v.  Berry, 

116  Ga.  19—362. 
Florida  Cent.  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  United 

States,  43  Ct.  CI.  fU.  S.)  572—290. 
Florida  Ea-sit  fk)ast  Rv.  Co.  v.  United 

States,  200  Fed.  797—1874. 
Florida  R.,   ete.,   Co.  v.   Webster,   25 

Fla.  394 — 1083. 
Florida    R.    &    Xav.    Co.    v.    Webster 

(Fla.),  5  So.  714—12.35. 
Florida    Rv.    Co.    v.    Dorsev.    50    Fla. 

260—1686. 


Florida  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Hirst,  30 

Fla.  1—990,  1054,  1068,  1071,  1211, 

1572,  1628. 
Florman   v.   Dodd   &   Childs   Express 

Co.,  79  N.  J.  L.  63—1903. 
Flournoy  v.  Shreveport  Belt  Ry.  Co., 

50  La.  Ann.  491—1268. 
Floutroup  V.  Boston  &  M.  R.  Co.,  163 

Mass.   152—1580. 
Flower  v.  Downs,  12  Rob.    (La.)    101 

—190. 
Flower  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  69  Pa. 

St.  210—1042. 
Floyd  V.  Bovard,  6  W.  &,  S.   (Pa.)   75 

—209. 
Fluker  v,  Georgia  R.  Co.,  2  L.  R.  A. 

844—1127,    1143,   1409. 
Flynn  v.   Central   Park,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

49  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  81—1155,  1166. 
Flynn   v.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   43 

Mo.  App.  424—778. 
Foard    v.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    8 

Jones  L.  (N.  C.)  235—83,  559,  620. 
Foden  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.,  13d 

App.  Div.   765—1538. 
Foggan  V.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 

N.  Y.  Supp.  25—208,  220,  278. 
Foley   V.    Boston   &   M.    R.'  Co.,    193 

Mass.  332 — 1635. 
Fonseca    v.     Cunard    Steamship   Co., 

153      Mass.      553—448,     451,     951, 

13.33,  1455. 
Forbes  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N. 

C.  454—1107. 
Forbes    v.    Boston,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    133 

Mass.  154—197,  215,  219,  222,  234, 

235,  267,  277,  590. 
Forbes  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    135 

Iowa,   679—1008. 
Ford  V.  Atlantic   Coast  L.   R.  Co.,   8 

Ga.  App.  295—1373,   1.384. 
Ford  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  N. 

C.   (8  .Jones  L.)   235—376. 
Ford      V.      Chicago,      etc..      Rv.      Co. 

(Minn.),   143  N.  W.  249—1*835. 
Ford   V.   East   T^uisiana   R.   Co.,   110 

La.  414 — 1139. 
Ford  V.  Kansas  City,  181  Mo.  137 — 

548. 
Ford  V.  T^ondon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  F.  & 

F.  730—1115. 
Ford    V.    Mitchell,    21    Tnd.    54 — 185, 

187. 
Ford    V.    ParkiT,   4   Olijo   St.   576 — S."j. 


'XCM 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   rcliToiucs   are   to   tlic   pages.) 


l-"or*lvtv     V.      Reocher,     2     Tox.    Civ. 

App.  29— lis  1. 
Fonlyi-c  v.  Cluiiuvy,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

•J4 — 1557. 
Kordyce     v.     Dilliiiglmin    (Tex.     Civ. 

Ap'p-^.  23   S.   \V.   550—1257. 
Forii\oe'  v.    Jaokson.    50    Ark.    5H4^ 

1054,    1103.    1270,    1495. 
Fonlyce    v.    Jolinson,    56   Ark.    430^ 

2l)9.  638.  639. 
Konlvco    V.    Mo(  aiil*<.    51    Ark.    509 — 

1.159. 
Fordvco   v.    McFlynn,    5C    Ark.    424— 

784,  026.  927. 
Fordyce  v.  Withers,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

540 — 1.'')01.   15.")7. 
Fordvco    &    Swanson    v.    Dempsey    &> 

B^'lisley,   72   Ark.  471—293. 
Foreman  v.  Great  Western  K.  Co.,  38 

U  T.  X.  S.  Sol— 465. 
Foreman  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106 

Va.   770—1023. 
Foreman  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  195 

Pa.   St.  499—1049,   1050,   1087. 
Forepaugh  v.  Delaware,  et«.,   128  Pa. 

St.   217—449. 
Forrester  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc..  Co.,  92 

(Ja.   699—777. 
Forsee   v.   Ala.hama  G.   S.   R,   Co.,   63 

Miss.  66— 15G3. 
Forsyth   v.   Boston,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    103 

Mass.  510—1601. 
Forsvthe  v.  Walker,  9  Pa.  St.  148— 

36',  560. 
Fort.     See  Ft. 
Fort  v.  Southern  Rv.  Co.   (S.  C),  42 

S.   E.    196—1722. 
Forth  v.  Simpson,  66  E.  C.  L.  680— 

642. 
Fortier    v.    Pennsylvania    Co.,    18    111. 

App.  260— 758, "769. 
Forward   v.   Pittard,   1   T.  R.  27—28, 

.307.  310.  .324,  372. 
Forwood  v.  Toronto,  22  Ont.  Rep.  351 

—  1509. 
Fosnes    v.    Diiluth    St.    Ry.    Co.,    140 

Wis.  45.5—1683. 
Foss  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co..  66  N.  H. 

2,56—1 2:^.1.    1247.    1248,    1256,    1592. 
Foster  v.  Atlanta  Rapid  Tr.  Co..  119 

Oa.  675—1565. 
Foster   V.    Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   56 

Fed.  434—614,   1792.   1800. 
Foster  v.  Colby,  3  H.  &  X.  705—644. 
Fo.-ter  V.  Essex  Bank,  17  Mass.  501 — 

14. 


Foster  v.  Framptim,  6  B.  A,  C.  107 — • 

244. 
Foster  v.  Metts,  55  Miss.  77—85. 
Foster     v.     Seattle    Electric    Co.,    35 

Wash.   177—1018.   1214,   1237. 
Foster,    Glassel    Co.    v.    Kansas    City 

Southern   Ry.   Co.,   121    La.    1053— 

058,  606. 
Foulkcs  v.  Metropolitan  Dist.  R.  Co., 

28  W.  R.  526—749. 
Fourche  River  Lumber  Co.  v.  Bryant 

Lumber  Co..  230  U.  S.  316-1883. 
Four    Thousand    Bags    of    Linseed,    1 

Black.   (U.  S.)   108—642. 
Foust    V.    Lee,    138    Mo.    App.    722— 

S.SO. 
Fowle  V.  Pitt  Scott,  183  Mass.  351— 

761. 
Fowler   v.   Davenport,   21   Tex.  626— 

307,  583.  587. 
Fowler  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Steam  Co., 

87  X.  Y.  190—352,  431,  462. 
Fowler  v.  W-estern  Union  Tel.  Co.,  80 

Me.  381—87. 
Fowles   V.   Great  Western   R.   Co..   22 

L.  J.  Exch.   76,   7   Exch.  699—197, 

234,  768. 
Fox  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  148  Mass. 

220—315,  343,  597,  735.  742. 
Fox  V.  Holt,  36  Conn.   104—643. 
Fox  V.  Mayor,  etc.,  of  N.  Y.   5   App. 

Div.  (N.  Y.)  349—1234. 
Fox  V.  McGregor,   11   Barb.    (N.   Y.) 

41—640. 
Fox  V.   Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co..   114 

Minn.  336-1282. 
Fox   V.    Philadelphia,    208   Pa.    127— 

104. 
Fox   V.   Wabash   R.   Co.,   16   Misc.   R. 

(X.  Y.)    370—1364. 
Fov  V.  London,  etc..  R.  Co.,  18  C.  B. 

N.  S.  228—123.3.   12.34. 
Fov   v.   Trov,   etc..    R,   Co.,   24    Barb. 

(X.  Y.)    382—739,  760. 
Fraam  v.  Grand  Rapids  &  I.  Ry.  Co., 

161   Mich.   550-1354.    1387. 
Francis  v.  Cockrell,  L.  R.  5  Q.  B.  184 

—1120. 
Francis  v.   Dubuque,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  25 

Iowa,  60—255.  .381. 
Francis  v.  Xew  York  Steam  Co.,  114 

X.   Y.    .38.5—1650.    1657. 
Francis  v.    Xew   York    Steam    Co.,    13 

Daly    (X.  Y.),   510—1101. 
Frnneis  v.    St.   Louis   Transfer  Co.,  5 

Mo.  App.  7—1704.  1707.  1708,  1709. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.)| 


xcvn 


Frank  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  9  Pa.  Super. 

Ct.  129—38,  329. 
Frank  v.  Grand  Tower,   etc.,  R.   Co., 

57  Mo.  App.  181—391,  399. 
Frank  v.  Keith,  2  Bush.   (Ky.)    123— 

324. 
Frank   v.   Memphis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    52 

Miss.  570 — 737,  751,  755. 
Frank  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  91 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)   485—1151. 
Frankford,  etc..  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Phila- 
delphia, etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Pa.  St.  345 

—1115. 
Franklin    v.    Louisville    &    N.    R.    Co. 

(Ky.),  116  S.  W.  765—620.  622. 
Franklin   v.   Low   and    Swartwout.    1 

Johns.  (N.  Y.)   396—85. 
Franklin  v.  Southern  California,  etc.. 

R.  Co.,  85  Cal.  63—1211.  1233,  1256, 

1690. 
Franklin    v.    Third    Ave.    R.    Co.,    52 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   512—1166. 
Franklin  v.  Twogood,  25  Iowa,  520 — 

."00. 
Franklin   Sugar  Refining  Co.  v.   Red 

Cross     Line,     68     Fed.     230—1988, 

1994. 
Frank  L.  Smith  Meat  Co.  v.  Oregon 

R.  &  Nav.  Co..  59  Or.  206—886. 
Fraser  v.  Harper  House  Co..   141    III. 

App.   390 — 1658. 
Frazier  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co..   104 

Mo.  App.  355—283. 
Frazier  v.  Charleston  &  W.  C.  Ry.  Co., 

81  S.  C.  162—1980. 
Frazier  v.  Kansas  Citv.  etc.,  R.   Co., 

48   Iowa,   571—175,  "l83.   838. 
Frazier  v.   Smith,  60  HI.   145—624. 
Prazier    v.    Telegraph    Co.     (Ala.).    4 

So.  831  —  1267. 
Freck  v.  Philadelphia,  etc..  R.  Co..  30 

Md.  576—1544.   1546. 
Frederick   v.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

133  Ala.  486. 
Fredericks  v.  Northern   Cent.  R.  Co., 

157  Pa.  St.  10."?— 1213.  1475,  1513. 
Freeburg  Coal   Co.  v.   Union   R..   etc., 

Co.,  10  Mo.  App.  596—740. 
Freedman  v.  Metropolitan  St.  Rv.  Co.. 

85  N.  Y.  Snpp.  986-1178. 
Freedom  v.  New   York   Cent.,  et'..  R. 

Co.,   24    .App.    Div.    (N.    Y.)     306— 

1140,    1402. 
Freeman  v.  Costlev    (Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.), 

124  S.  W.  458—1396.  1420. 


Freeman  v.   Davis    (Tex.   Civ.  App.), 

117  S.  W.  186—1502. 
Freeman  v.   Detroit,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   56 

Mich.  577—1228. 
Freeman     v.     Kemendo      (Tex.     Civ. 

App.),  148  S.  W.  605—656. 
Freeman  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Fla.  420—735. 
Freeman  v.  Metropolitan   St.   R.  Co., 

95  Mo.  App.  94—1170,  1217. 
Freeman  v.  Newton,  3  E.  D.  Sm.  246 

—424,  1338. 
Freeman  v.  Pere  Marquette  R.  Co.,  9 

Det.  L.  N.  436—1626. 
Freeman    v.    Quebedeaux    (Tex.    Civ. 

App.),  151  S.  W.  643—323. 
Freeman  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co., 

138  Mo.  App.  322—423. 
Freeman  v.  Wilmington  &  P.  Traction 

Co.    (Del.   Super.),   80  Atl.    1001— 

1520,  1548,  1669. 
Freemantle    v.    London,    etc.,   R.    Co., 

100  E.  C.  L.  95—1115. 
Freight  Bureau  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,    4    Int.    Com.    Rep.    592—1849, 

1850. 
Frelsen  v.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  42  La. 

Ann.  673—1119. 
Fremont  v.   Metropolitan   St.  R.   Co., 

83  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   414—1610. 
Fremont,   etc..    R.    Co.   v.   French,   48 

Neb.  638—946, 
Fremont,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Ilagblad,  72 

Neb.  772-980,  998. 
Fremont,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   New   York, 

etc.,   R.   Co.    (Neb.),  92  N.  W.   131 

—535,  767. 
Fremont,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Waters 

(Neb.),  70  N.  W.  225—740.  781. 
French  v.  BufValo.  etc..  R.  Co.,  4  Keyea 

(N.  Y.).  108—462.  575,  1460.  1462. 
French  v.  Merchant's,  etc..  Trans.  Co., 

199   Mass    43.3—1341. 
French  v.  Star  Union  Transp.  Co.,  134 

Mass.  288-328. 
Frey  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

114   App.    lYiv.    (N.   Y.)    747—356, 

596. 
Friar  v.  Orange  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  (Tex 

Civ.  App.).  101  S.  W.  274—1173. 
Friek    v.    St.    Fxiuis.    etc.,    R.    Co      '>^ 

Wis.    186—1587. 
Fricdlander    v.    Te.xas,    etc.,    Ry     Co 

130  IT.  S.  416.  424—218,  229. 


XCVIU 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


Friedman  ▼.  Metropolitan   S.  S.  Co., 

45  Mise.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)    383—258. 
Friend  v.  Woods,  6  Gratt.   (Va.)    189 

—27. 
Frink  v.  Coe,  4  (Ireeiie   (Iowa),  55;") — 

045,  1132.  1722.  1724. 
Frink  v.  Potter,   17   111.  400-1581. 
Frink   v.   Selirover.    18   111.   416—000, 

1716. 
Fri/ZA-'U    V.   Omalia   St.   Ry.   Co.,    124 

Fed.  176—1072. 
Frobisher  v.   Fifth   Ave.  Transp.   Co., 

151  N.  Y.  431  —  1120. 
Frothinnrhani  v.  Jenkins,   1   Cal.  42 — - 

635,  642,  648. 
Fry    V.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    103 

Ind.  265 — 781. 
Fry  V.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  247  111.  564 

—1912.   1026.      . 
Fry  V.  State.  63  Ind.  562—1758,  1857. 
Ft.   Smith  &   VV.   11.   Co.   v.   Chandler 

Cotton  Oil  Co.,  25  Okl.  82—724. 
Ft.   Wayne  Tract.  Co.  v.  Hardendorf 

(Ind.),  72  N.  E.  593—1057. 
Ft.    Wayne    Tract.    Co.    v.    Morvilius 

(Ind.),  68  Me.  304—1680. 
Ft.   Worth   &   D.   C.   Rv.   Co.  v.   Day 
(Te.v.  Civ.  App.),   Ill   S.  W.  663— 
1490. 
Ft.  Worth  &  D.  C.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Willie 
S.    &   J.    B.    Ikard    Co.    (Tex.    Civ. 
App.),  140  S.  W.  502-869.  ■ 
Ft.   Worth    &    R.   G.    R.   Co.   v.   Neal 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  140  S.  W.  308— 
1496. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Albin   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  142  S.  W.  933—845. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alexander 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  81  S.  W.  101.5— 
852. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  105  S.  W. 
829—916. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Daggett,  87 

Tex.  322—815. 

Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Greatliouse, 

82    Tex.    104—486,    516,    585.    589, 

590,  602,  617.  881.  906,  1456,   1450. 

Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gribble(Tex. 

Civ.   App.),   102   S.   W.   157—1391, 

1426. 

Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Hyatt,    12 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  4.35—1110. 
Ft.   Worth,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Johnson, 
5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  24—780. 


Ft.    Worth,   etc.,   R.   Co.     v.    Lillard 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  10  S.  W.  654— 
269. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  12 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  464—180,  184. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Masterson, 

95  Tex.  262—908. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McAnulty, 

7  Tex.  Civ.   App.  .321—759. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCarthy, 

42  Tex.  Civ.  App.  514—1346. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pointdexter 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  154  S.  W.  581— 
818. 
Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Richard 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  105  S.  VV.  236— 
867. 
Ft.  Wortli,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rilev   (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  1  S.  W.  446—183,  832. 
846. 
Ft.   Worth,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rosenthal 
Millinery  Co.    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  29 
S.  W.  196—1299,  1301,  1376. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rogers,  21 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  605—1459. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ryers  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  35  S.  W.  1082—735. 
Ft.  W'orth,  etc.,  R,  Co.  v.  Thompson. 

(2  Tex.  Civ.  App.   170—1555. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc..  R.   Co.  v.  Waggoner 
Nat.  Bank,  36  Tex.  Civ.  App.  293— 
831. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whitehead, 

6   Tex.   Civ.   App.   595—1775. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wliiteside 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  141  S.  W.  1037— 
840,  868. 
Ft.  W^orth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams.  71 

Te.x.  121—750,  757.  768.  781 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  W..od  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  32  S.  W.  14—026. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  V\ord   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  Ill  S.  W.  753. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wright,  24 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  291—923. 
Ft.    Worth,    etc.,   R.    Co.     v.    Wright 
(Tex.   Civ.  App.),   58  S.  W.   846— 
767. 
Ft.   W^orth   St.   R.   Co.   v.   Witten.   74 

Tex.  202—1081. 
Fuhry   v.    Chicago   Citv   Ry.   Co.,    144 

111.  App.  521-1497." 
Fulghum  V.  Atlantic  Coast  L.  R,  Co. 
15  N.  C.  .55.5—1584,  1693.  ,' 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


XCIX 


Fulks  V.   St.  Louis,  etc..  R.   Co.,    Ill 

Mo.  335—1.54,  1571,  1613,  1614. 
Fuller  V.   Bradley,   25   Pa.   St.    120 — 

15,  17,  20,  0^4. 
Fuller    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    E,.    Co.,    31 

Iowa,   187—1730. 
Fuller  V.  Dennison  &  Sherman  Rv.  Co. 
(Tex.),  74  S.  W.  940— 1239, 'l6Sl. 
Fuller  V.  Illinois  Central  R.  Co.,  164 

111.  App.  284- 168. 
Fuller  V.   Jamestown   St.   R.   Co.,   75 

Hun  (N.  Y.),  273—1561. 
Fuller  V.  Naugatuck  R.  Co..  21  Conn. 

557—41,  1211.   1237,  1557. 
Fulton  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  17  U. 

C.  Q.  B.  428-1016,  1396. 
Fulton  V.  Lydecker,   17   N.  Y.   Supp. 

451—271. 
Fultz    V.    Metropolitan    St.    Rv.    Co. 

(Mo.  App.),  148  S.  W.  210—1620. 
Furgaaon  v.  Citizens'  St.  E.  Co.  (Ind. 

App.),  44  N.  E.  936—1198. 
Pnrman  v.   Chicago,   etc..  R.   Co.,  81 

Iowa,  540—329,   331,  400. 
Furman   v.   Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co.,  62 

Iowa,  395—207,  329. 
Furman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  E.  Co.,   57 

Iowa,  42—207,  329. 
Furman  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co..  106  N. 

Y.  579—206,  220,  222,  223,  225.  233. 
Furnish  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,   102 

Mo.  438—1116,  1117,  1213,  1500. 
Furstenheim  v.  Memphis  &  0.  R.  Co., 

.56  Tenn   (9  Heisk)   238—1370. 
Fusselman  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  139  Mo. 

App.  198—1275,  1629. 


G. 

Gahhert   v.    Hackett,    135    Wis.    86— 

969.  993.  10.35. 
Gfabriel  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  54  App, 

Div.  (N.  Y.)  41—1555. 
Gabriel  v.  St.  Ix>uis.  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  135 

Mo.  App.  222—1635. 
Gabrielson  v.  Wavdell,  67  Fed.  342— 

1133. 
Gadsden,   etc.   R.    Co.   v.    Causler.   97 

Ala.  23.5—1133,  1227.  1567.  1673. 
Gaffney   v.   Brooklvn   Citv   R.   Co.,   8 

Misc.  Rep.    (X.   Y.)    1—1106. 
GafTney   v.  St.   Paul   City  R.   Co.,  81 

Minn.  459—975,  983. 


Gage  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  75  Miss. 

17—1259. 
Gage  V.  Tirrell,  9  Allen   (Mass.),  299 

—75,  324,  350. 
Gaines  v.   Chester  Traction   Co.,   224 

Pa.  52—1088. 
Gaines  v.  Union  Transp.,  etc.,  Co.,  28 

Ohio   St.   418—419,   427,   433,   577, 

579. 
Galaviz  v.  International  &  G.  N.   R. 

Co.,  15  Tex.  Civ.  App.  61 — 1060. 
Gale  V.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Hun 

(N.  Y.)    670—1014,  1025,  1026. 
Galehouse  v.  INIinneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

22  N.  D.  615—1023. 
Galena,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v.   Fay,    16   111. 

558—1541,  1565. 
Galena  R.  Co.  v.  Rae,   18  111.  488 — 

116,    117,    132,    136,    138,   184,   295, 

.343,  597,  605,  610,  612,  625. 
Galena,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Yarwood,   15 

111.  468—1135,   1501,  1512,   1581. 
Gales  V.  Hailman,  11  Pa.  St.  515 — 23. 
Galesburg,   etc.,  R.   Co.   v.   West,   108 

111.  App.  504—166,  245. 
Galigan  v.  Old  Colony  St.  R.  Co.,  182 

:\lass.  211—1102.   1215. 
Gallagher    v.    Bowie,  66   Tex.   265 — 

1129,  1132. 
Gallagher  v.   City  of  Piiiladelphia,  4 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  60—80. 
Gallagher  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  8 

Ir.  R.  C.  L.  326—465. 
Gallaway  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87 

Iowa,  458 — 1679. 
Gallegly  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

(Miss.),  35  So.  420 — 1407. 
Gallena   v.    Hot    Springs    R.    Co.,    13 

Fed.    116—1131,    1170,    142.5,    1427, 

1721. 
Galliers  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116 

Iowa,  319—587. 
Gallin  v.  London,  etc.,  R.   Co..  L.  R. 

10   0.   B.   212—1451.    1456.    1467. 
Gallowav   v.   Erie   R.    Co.,    116   App. 

niv.   (N.  Y.)   777—878. 
Gallowav  v.   Erie  R.   Co.,   102  N    Y 

Supp.' 25—421. 
Galloway   v.    Erie   R.    Co.,    95   N.   Y. 

^'ipp.   17.   107   App.  Div.   120 — SO.*?. 
Gallowiiv  V.  TTnirhps,  1    Bayley  L    (S 

C.)   55.3— 199.  219,  258.  "     "       '        ' 
Gallowav  v.  Hughes,  1  (  onk.  Adm.  96 

—219. 
Gait  V.  Adams  K\p.  Co..  McArthur  & 


TABLE  OF  CAPES. 
(The   roftii'iuos   are  to   the   pages.j 


M.    ^D.  C.)    124—40.  5-24.  .->2(i,  rv27, 

1450,  1458. 
(^alt  V.  Archer.  7  Gratt.   (Va.)   .107— 

«4*>.  (i:>0. 
Ualvostoii   City    R.   I'o.   v.   llowitt,   07 

Tex.  47;J— 1214. 
Galveston,  etc..  R.   Co.  v.  Allison.  59 

Tex.  IJKJ— 41!),  741.  770. 
Galveston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Ball,  80  Tex. 

602—458.  4S5.  516.  5!)0. 
Galveston,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Barnett 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  26  S.  W.   782— 

S42. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bean    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  99  S.  W.   731—1471. 
Galveston,   etc..    R.   Co.   v.    Boothe.   3 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  Cas.,  §  3():i— 486. 
Galveston,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.    Botts.    22 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  936,  70  S.  W.  113— 

859.  907,  936. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb  &  Mc- 

Crarv    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  126  S.  W. 

63— o98.  868. 
Galveston,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Cooper,   2 

Tex.   Civ.  App.   42—1607,   1728. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crier    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  100  S.  W.   1177—1503. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Crippen 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  147  S.  W.  361— 

515.  868. 
Galveston,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Crispi,   73 

Tex.  230—1233,   1257. 
Galveston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Crow    (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),    117    S.   W.    170—1902, 

1910. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Donahoe.  5G 

Tex.  162—1149,  1183,  1724.  1725. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Efron   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  38  S.  W.  639—579,  583. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.   Co.   v.    Fales.    33 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  457,  77  S.  W.  234— 

1294,  1330. 
Galveston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  F.  A.  Piper 

Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  115  S.  W.  107 

—1911,  1912,  1926. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fink    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  99  S.  W.  204—994. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Gildea.   2 

Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,   §  271—569. 
Galveston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Gracia  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  100  S.  W.  198—1502. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Harman.  2 

Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  13.5— SSO. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.     v.     Herring 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  113  S.  W.  521— 

15.50. 


Galveston,    etc..    R.    Co.     v.     Herring 

(Tex.   Civ.   App.),  36   S.   W.   129— 
837. 
Galveston,    etc..    R.    Co.     v.     Herring 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  28   S.   VV.  580— 

593. 
Galveston,    etc..    R.    Co.     v.     Herring 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  24  S.  W.   939— 

742. 
Galveston,    etc..   R.    Co.     v.     Houston 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  40   S.   W.  842— 

924. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Hubbard 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),   70   S.  W.  764— 

1237. 
Galveston,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ivey    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  23  S.  W.  321—815. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Jackson 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  37   S.   W.   255— 

797,  832,  837. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson  & 

Johnson    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),    133   S. 

VV.  725—939,  1912.  1919. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.     v.     Johnson 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),   37   S.   W.  243— 

780. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.     v.     Johnson 

(Tex.),  19  S.  W.  867—590,  594. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  .Johnson,  2 

Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  18.5—1187. 
Galveston,  etc  ,   R.   Co.  v.  Jones,   104 

Tex.  92—845,  911. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones   (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    123    S.    W.    737—801, 

807,  822,  830. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Karrer  (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),     109   S.   W.   440—369, 

869. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelley  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  26  S.  W.  470—591. 
Galveston,  etc..   R.   Co.  v.   Kinnebew, 

7  Tex.  Civ.  App.  549—1451. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Krenck  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),   138  S.  W.   1154—1682. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  LeGierse,  51 

Tex.  189—1613. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   La  Prelle, 

27  Tex.  Civ.  App.  496—1167. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Long   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  36  S.  W.  485—1194. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Malzdorf 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  107  S.  W.  882— 

1282. 
Galveston,    etc..    R.     Co.    v.    Morria 
(Tex.),  61  S.  W.  709—1661. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CI 


(The  references   are   to   the   pages.) 


Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Noelke  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  125  S.  W.  909—842. 
Galvedton,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Noelke  ( Tex. 

Civ.  App.),   110  S.  W.  82—918. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Parsley,   6 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  150—346.  1047. 
Galveston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Patillo  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  101  S.  W.  492—166.3. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  F.  A.  Piper 

Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  115  S.  W.  lOT 

—1911,  1912,  1926. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Powers  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  117  S.  W.  459—830. 
Galveston,   etc.,   R.   Co.    v.    Rutledge 

(lex.  Civ.   App.),  37   S.  W.   176— 

837. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.     v.     Schmidt 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  25   S.  W.   452— 

147. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Scott,    18 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  321—1134. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scott   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  79  S.  W.  642—1391. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Short   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  25  S.  W.  142—286,  741, 

767. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Silegman 

(Tex.   Civ.   App.),  23   S.  W.  298— 

152,  294,   749. 
Galveston,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Smith.   81 

Tex.  479—1353,   1531. 
Galveston,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Smith,   59 

Tex.  406—1677. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith   (Tex. 

Uv.  Apn.),  24  S.  W.  668—13.50. 
G«lveston,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Stovall,   3 

Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  250—904. 
Galveston,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v.   Thompson 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  23   S.  W.  930— 

486,  806. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Thorns- 
berry    (Tex.),  17  S.  W.  521—1236, 

1715. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Tuckett 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  35  S.  W.   150— 

344,   595. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Van  Winkle, 

3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Cas.  §§  442,  443— 

261,  741,  748. 
Galveston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Wallace,  223 

U.  S.  481—1902,  1925. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Wallace 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.).  117  S.  W.   169— 

1902,    1911,    1912. 
Galveston,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Warnken 


(Tex.    Civ.   App.),    35    S.   W.   72— 

820. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  v.  Watson,   1 

Tex.  av.  App.  Cas.  §  813—260. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Williams 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  25  S.  W.  1019— 

486. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Wiseman 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  136  S.  W.  793— 

952. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood   (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    124    S.    W.    478—305, 

1854. 
Galveston,     etc..     R.     Co.     v.     Young 

(Tev.  Civ.  App.),  100  S.  W.  993— 

1492. 
Galveston,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Young   & 

Webb    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),   148  S.  W. 

1113—910. 
Galveston    Chamber    of    Commerce    v. 

Railroad     Commission     (Tex.     Civ. 

App.),   137   S.  W.  737—705. 
Galveston    H.    &    S.    A.    Rv.    Co.    v. 

Karrer     (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    109    S. 

W.  440—604. 
Galveston  H.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  La  Prelle 

iTe.x.   Civ.  App.),  65   S.  W.  488— 

1171. 
Galvin   v.   Kansas   City,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

21  Mo.  App.  273—598. 
Gamble-Robinson    Commission   Co.   v. 

Chicago  &  X.  W.  R.  Co.,   168   Fed. 

161—1822,   1823. 
Ganiard    v.    Rochester    Citv,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    50    Hun     (N.    Y.)^    22—975, 

1211,  1238,  1553. 
Gann  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  72  Mo. 

App.  34—145,  351,  539,  843,  936. 
Gannell  v.  Ford,  5  L.  T.  X.  S.  604— 

873. 
Gannon  v.   Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   141 

Iowa,  37—960.   1005. 
Gannon    v.    Xew    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

173  Mass.  50—1580. 
Ganiiner  v.  Xew  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  201   X.  Y.  387— 501.  511,   1339, 

1384. 
Gardiner  v.  Xew  York  C^'nt.,  etc,,  R. 

Co.,  139  App.  Div.  17—1384. 
Gardner    v.    Detroit    St.    R.    Co.,    99 

Mich.   182—1241,   1563. 
Gardner  v.   Metropolitan   St.   R.   Co., 

223   Mo.   380— 1 101.    1538. 
Gardner  v.  Metropolitan   St.  Ry.  Co., 

167   Mo.   App.  605—1674. 


Oil 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   rcfortiuos   are    to    tlie    \n\gvi 


Garduor   v.  New    Haven,   eti ..    K.   Co., 

51  Conn.  14:$— !>u;.  974,  UKJS,  1059. 

Garilner  v.  Soutli.   K.  Co.,   127   N.  C. 

•J!);$— 427,  457.  471. 
Caniner  v.  St.  Ixniis  &   S.    K.   K.  Co., 

117    Mo.   App.    i:5S— 104t). 
Gardner  v.  \\ "aveross  Air  Line  R.  Co., 

97  Gu.  4S2— 1475,  1487. 
Garey   v.  Mea^'lier,  33  Ala.  630—10!). 
Garland  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,   Ill   Ga. 

852—1221. 
Garliugton    v.    Fort    Worth,    etc.,    R. 
Co.,    34   Tex.    Civ.    App.    234—601, 
602. 
Garncau  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  109 

111.  App.  169—1232. 
Garner    v.    Cliicago    Consol.    Tr.    Co., 

150  111.  App.   149—1481. 
Garner  v.  Green,  S  Ala.  06—59. 
Garner  v.  St.  Louis,  I.  M.  &  S.  Ry. 

Co.,  79  Ark.  353—170,  189. 
Garnett  v.  Willan.  5  B.  &  Aid.  53— 

463. 
Garoni  v.  Campagnie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

St.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    63—1114. 
Garoni    v.    Compagne    Nationale    de 
Navigation,    131    N.   Y.   614—1590. 
Garrett  v.  Atlantic  Citv  &.  S.  R.  Co., 

79  N.  J.  La^v  127—997. 
Garrett  v.  St.  Louis  Transit  Co.,  219 

Mo.  65—1425. 
Garrett  v.   Wabash   R.   Co.,    159   Mo. 

App.  63—1584. 
Garrison  v.  Baggage  Transp.  Co.,  94 

Mo.   130—230. 
Garrison    v.    Memphis    Ins.    Co.,    19 

How.   (U.  S.)    312—75. 
Garrison  v.  United  Rep.  &  Elec.   Co. 
of  Baltimore   (Md.),  55  Atl.  371— 
1392,   1415. 
Garside  v.   Trent  Nav.   Co.,   4   T.  R. 

581—198.  386.  392,  768,  774. 
Garton  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  R.   Co..   1   B. 
&  S.   112,   5   C.   B.  N.   S.   669—21, 
465. 
Garvev  v.  Rhode  Island  Co.,  26  R.  I. 

80—1021. 
Gashweiler   v.   W'abash,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

83  Mo.  112—258.  381,  404. 
Gass   V.  New   York.   etc..   R.   Co.,   99 
Mass.  220—181,  747,  759,  776.  778, 
781. 
Gasway   v.   Atlanta,   etc.,   R.   Co..   58 

Ga.  216-1131,  1148. 
Gatens  v.  Metropolitan   St.   Ry.   Co., 


85  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  311,  85  N.  Y. 

Supp.  967—1222,   1644. 
Gates    v.    Bekins,    44    Wash.    422,    87 

Pac.  505—282. 
Gales    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    42 

Neb.  379—119,  207,  215,  220.  342. 
Gates  v.  Quiney,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  Mo. 

App.  334—993,  1400,  1425. 
Gates  V.  Ryan,  37  Fed.  154—249,  525. 
Gaukler  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   130 

Mich.   666—1406,   1427. 
Gault   Lumber   Co.   v.   Atchison,   etc., 

Rv.  Co.   (Okl.),  130  Pac.  291—647, 

690,  697,  703. 
Gaiisman  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,   134  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    989— 

1357. 
Gavett  V.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 

Gray    (Mass.),  501—1675. 
Gay  V.  Milwaukee  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.,  138 

Wis.  348—1529. 
Gaynor   v.   Old    Colony,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

100    Mass.    208—1012,    1242,    1598, 

1601. 

Gay's  Gold,  13  Wall.    (U.  S.)    358— 

i.io. 
Geary  v.  Stephenson,   169  Mass.  31 — ■ 

1562. 
Geraty  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

81  S.  C.  367—423. 
Gee  V.  Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  H. 

&  N.  211—619. 
Gee  V.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  L.  R.   8 

Q.  B.   161—1584,   1632. 
Geiger  v.  Pittsburgh  Rvs.  Co.,  234  Pa. 

54.5—1022. 
Geiler  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  11  Misc. 

Rep.    (N.  Y.)    413—1560. 
Geipel   v.   Steinway   R.   Co.,    14   App. 

Div.   (N.  Y.)   551—1081. 
Geismer   v.   Lake   Shore,   etc..   R.   Co., 

102   X.   Y.   563—36,    137,   248,   326, 

340,  341,  343,  359,  369.  370,  371. 
Geitz   v.   Milwaukee   Citv   R.   Co.,   72 

Wis.  307—1639,   1641,'^  1644. 
Gelley  v.  New  Orleans  City  &  L.  R. 

Co.,  49   La.  Ann.  588—1642. 
Gel])cke  v.  City  of  Dubuque,  1  Wall. 

(U.   S.)    17.5—390. 
Gelvin   v.   Kansas   Citv.   etc..   R.   Co., 

21  Mo.  App.  273—187.  541,  618. 
Geneva,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Sage,  35  Hun 

(N.  Y.),  9.5—642. 
General    Fire     Extinguisher     Co.     v. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CUl 


(The   references   are  to   the   pages.) 


Carolina  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Co.,   137  N. 

C.  278—320. 
Geogan   v.    Adams   Express   Co.,    114 

Pa.  St.  523—457. 
Cieogagn   v.   New   York,   etc.,   E.   Co., 

10  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   454—1675. 
George  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   214 

Mo.  551—885,   887. 
Crcorge    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   67 

Mo.  App.  358—570. 
George   v.    Los    Angeles    R.    Co.,    126 

Cal.  357—976. 
George  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   34 

Ark.   613—1080,    1083,    1211,    1501. 
€reorge     C.    Vagley     Elevator    Co.     v. 

American  Express  Co.,  63  Minn.  142 

—551. 
GJeorge  F.   Ditman   Boot,  etc.,  Co.  v. 

Keokuk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Iowa,  416 

—1350,  1353. 
George  N.  Pierce  Co.  v.  Wells,  Fargo 

&  Co.,  189  Fed.  561—1847,  1918. 
Georgetown  &  T.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Smith, 

25  App.  D.  C.  259—1102. 
Georgia   Coast   &   P.   R.   Co.   v.   Dur- 

rence  &  Sands,   6   Ga.   App.   615 — 

142,  545. 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barfield,  1  Ga. 

App.  20.3—308,  317. 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Du  Bose,  9  Ga. 

App.  607—1379. 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Doughcrtv,  86 

Ga.   744—1416. 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  3  Ga. 

App.  773—360. 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eskew,  86  Ga. 

641-1446,   1720. 
Georgia,  ftc.   T?.   Co.  v.  Murray,   113 

Ga.   1621—1672. 
Georgia,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Olds,  77  Ga. 

673—1416. 
Georgia,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Pound,  111  Ga. 

6—380,  382. 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Reid,  91   Ga. 

377—469,  873. 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  83  Ga. 

626—782. 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Usry,  82  Ga. 

54—1673. 
Georgia   Pac.   Rv.    Co.   v.   Gaines,    88 

Ala.  377-780. 
Georgia  Pac.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Hughart,  90 

Ala.  36—492,  777. 
G«orgia  Pac.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Love    91  Ala- 

432—1487,  1497,  1.'526. 


Georgia   Pac.    Ry.    Co.    v.    Propst,    83 

Ala.  518—1286. 
Georgia  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Robinson,  68 

Miss.  643—984,  1018. 
Georgia  Pac.  Ry.   Co.   v.   Underwood, 

90  Ala.  49—1655. 
Georgia    Pac.    Ry.    Co.    v.    West,    66 

Miss.  310—1677. 
Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Beatie,  66  Ga.  438 

— 455. 
Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  CJole,  68  Ga.  623— 

279,  358,  752. 
Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Creety,  5  Ga.  App. 

424—1881. 
Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Dorsey,  116  Ga.  719 

—1710. 
Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Gann,  68  Ga.  350 — 

427,  749,  777,  1458. 
Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Hayden,  71  Ga.  518 

—1261.  1701,  1704. 
Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Homer,  73  Ga.  251 

—251,  1212. 
Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Murden,  86  Ga.  434 

—1070. 
Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Olds,  77  Ga.  673— 

1711,  1712,  1721. 
Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Pound,  111  Ga.  6 — 

196. 
Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Spears,  56  Ga.  485 — 

433,  454,  821. 
Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  86  Ga. 

327—1353. 
Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  West,  66  Miss.  310 

—1241. 
Georgia  R.  &  B.  Co.  v.  Greer,  7  Ga. 

App.  292—1139. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Baker,  120  Ga. 

991—1712. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Baker,  1  Ga. 

App.   832-1178. 
Georgia  R.  etc.,  Co.  v.  Crossley  &  Co.. 

128  Ga.  35—721. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Eskew,  86  Ga. 

641—1446,   1720. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gilleland,  133 

Ga.  021—1531. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Haas,  127  Ga. 

187—293,533. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hopkins,  108 

Ga.   324—1170. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Johnson,   113 

Ga.  589—1293. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Keener,  93  Ga. 

80H— 492. 


CIV 


TA151.K  OF  CASES. 


(The    rcftMciuts   uri>    to    I  lie    pages.) 


G<xii;,'ia  U.,  eti-..  Co.  v.  .Mo AUistt  r,  1J() 

(ia.   47 — ^1,")SH. 
Gforijia,  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.   MiCunlv.  45 

Ga.    288—1228.     1229,     124.S.    Vjr.C. 

1679. 
Geoiuia  R.,  oti-.,  Co.  v.  Murrali,  85  Ga. 

343—037. 
Georgia    R.,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Phillips,   93 

Ga.   SOI  — 1350. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Reoncr,  93  Ga. 

80S— 570. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.   Reid,  91   Ga. 

377—517,  815. 
Georgia   R.,   etc.,   Co.   v.    Rich,   9   Ga. 

App.  497—1174. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Richmond,  98 

Ga.  49r>— 1278. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Thompson,  86 

Ga.  327 — 380. 
Georgia  R.  R.  v.  Richards,  9  Ga.  App. 

639—674. 
Georgia  S.  &  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Greer,  2  Ga. 

App.  516—898. 
Georgia  S.  &  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Marchman, 

121   Ga.  235—534. 
Georgia  Southern   R.  Co.  v.   Bigelow, 

68  Ga.  219—1028. 
Gerber    v.    Wabash    R.    Co..    63    Mo. 

App.    145—1832,    1833. 
Gerhard  v.  Xeese,  36  Tex.  635—359. 
Gerke  Brewing  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  4  Int.  Com.  C.  Rep.  596— 

1828. 
Germain  v.  Montreal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

L.  C.  Rep.  172—1505. 
German   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   38 

Iowa,   127 — 822. 
German   Exchange   Bank   v.   Commis- 
sioners, 57  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)   187 — 

530. 
Germania  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Memphis, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  N.  Y.  90—431,  444, 

452,  578. 
German   State   Bank   v.   Minneapolis, 

etc.,  R.   Co.    (W.   S.   C.   C.   Minn.), 

113  Fed.  414—86. 
Germantown  Pass.  R.  Co.  v.  Walling, 

97  Pa.  St.  55 — 1641,  1644. 
Gerstle  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  23  Mo. 

App.  361—1639. 
Getman  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  162 

N.  Y.  21—1583. 
Ghio  V.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co.,  125 

Mo.  App.  710—1683,  1698. 


Ghormley     v.     Diiismore,     51     N.     Y. 

Super.   Ct.    196—461.   484. 
Gibbons   v.    Farwell,    63    Mich.    344 — 

234,  270,  330.  333. 
(!il)bons   v.    Paynton,   4    Burr.   22))8 — 

463.  523. 
Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  1, 

229—1731,    1735,   1736,   1737,   1742. 

1747.   175S.   1894. 
Gibbons  v.  Wade,  8  N.  J.  L.  255 — 427. 
Gibbons  v.  Yazoo  &  M.  V.  R.  Co.,  130 

La.  671—385. 
Gibler    v.    Terminal    R.    Ass'n    of    St. 

Louis,  203  Mo.  208—78. 
Giblin  v.  McMullen,  L.  R.  2  P.  C.  317 

—6. 
Giblin   v.   National   Steamship  Co.,  8 

Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)   22—823,  905. 
Gibson  v.   American  Merchants',  etc., 

Express  Co.,  1  Hun    (N.  Y.)   389— 

264,    401,    765. 
Gibson  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

88  S.  C.  360—1926. 
Gibson  v.  Culver,   17   Wend.    (N.  Y.) 

30.5—251,  398. 
Gibson    v.    Draughn    v.    Little    Rock. 

etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  93  Ark.  439—1907. 
Gibson  v.  International  Trust  Co.,  186 

Mass.  454—101,  1096,  1165. 
Gibson  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 

Ark.  439—1902. 
Gibson    v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    Ry.    Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  135  S.  W.  1121— 

1577. 
Gilbert  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   132 

Mo.  App.  697—818,  842. 
Gilbert  v.  N.  Y.  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 

Hun   (N.  Y.)   378—193. 
Gilbert  v.   Third   Ave.   R.  Co.,  54  N. 

Y.  Super.  Ct.  470—1.556. 
Gilbert  v.  West  End  St.  R.  Co.,  4  Am. 

Elect.    Gas.    456,    160    Mass.    403— 

1240. 
Gilbert  Bros.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

(Iowa),  136  N.  W.  911—786. 
Giles     V.     Diamond     State     Iron     Co. 

(Del.),  8  Atl.  Rep.  368 — 1534. 
Giles  V.   Fargo,  60  N.  Y.  Super.   Ct. 

117—461. 
Giles  V.  Taff  Vale  R.  Co.,  2  El.  &  Bl. 

823—185,  543. 
Gilhooly    v.    New    York,    etc..    Steam 

Nav.  Co.,  1  Daly  (N.  Y.)  197—996, 

1531. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references   are  to   the   pages.) 


CY 


Gilkerson   v.   Pacific   R.    Co.,   39   Mo. 

354—372. 
Gill   V.    Erie   R.   Co.,    1.51    App.    Div. 

(N.  Y.)    131—1514.   1774. 
Gill  V.  Manchester,  etc..  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 
8  Q.  B.  186,  42  L.  .J.  Q.  B.  89—198, 
204,  744,  745,  823,  848. 
Gill  V.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Hun 

(N.  Y.)   107—1258,  1402. 
Gillenwater  v.  Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
5    Ind.    330—944,    957,    1031,    1064, 
1131,  1212. 
Gillespie  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 
178    N.    Y.    347—1147,    1149,    1156, 
1175,  1709. 
Gillespie  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  144 

Mo.    App.   508—843. 
Gillespie  v.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.,  6 
Mo.    App.    554—1123,    1220,    1477, 
1513. 
Gillespie  v.  Yonkers  R.  Co.,  87  App. 

Div.   (N.  Y.)   38—1681. 
Gillet  V.  Roberts,  57  N.  Y.  28—27.1, 

285. 
Gillikin  &  Gaskill  v.  Lake  Drummond 

Canal  Co.,  147  N.  C.  39—80. 
Gilliland    v.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co. 

(Miss.),  32  So.  916—160. 
Gilliland  v.   Southern   Rv.  Co.,  8.')  S. 

C.  26 — 421,  803,  813,  900. 

Gillingham  v.  Ohio  River  R.  Co.,  35 

W.  Va.  588—24  582,  944,  948,  9.59, 

1100,   1132,  1147,   1184,   1186,   1214. 

Gillis  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  59  Pa. 

St.  129—1019. 
Gillis  V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  61 

Vt.  461—91. 
Gillshannon  v.  Stony  Brook  R.  Corp., 

10  Cush.    (Mass.)    22H— 1063. 
Gilmore  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 
6    App.    Div.     (N.    Y.)     117—1474, 
1487. 
Gilmore    r.    Carman,     1     Sni.    &    M. 

(Miss.)  279—27,  75,  310. 
Gilmore  v.  City  of  Utica,   121   X.  Y. 

561—1082. 
Gilmore  v.  Milford  &  U.   St.   R.  Co., 

193  Mass.  44—1091. 
Gilman    v.    Postal    Tclcirraph    Co.,    48 
Misc.    R.     (N.    v.)     372—107,    108, 
109,   110. 
Gilson  V.  Gwinn,  107  Mass.  120—633. 
Gilson  v.  Jackson,  etc..  R.  Co.,  76  Mo. 
2S2— lOSO,    1213,    1202. 


Gilson   V.   Madden,    1   Lans.    (N.   Y.) 

172—670. 
Ginn   v.   Ogdensburg   Transit    Co.,    85 

Fed.  98.5—2034. 
Ginsburg  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  160 

111.  App.  566—513. 
Giraldo  v.  Coney  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

16  X.  Y.  Supp.  774—1588. 

Girard  College  Pass.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Mid- 

dleton,  3  \V.  X'.  C.  (Pa.)  486—1507. 

Gisbourn  v.  Hurst.   1   Salk  249 — 626. 

Gladson  v.  State  (Minn.),  17  Sup.  Ct. 

Rep.  627—1230. 
Glasco  v.  X'ew  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  36 

Barb.   (X.  Y.)   557—1302,  1330. 
Glascock  V.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

140  Ky.  720—1669. 
Glass  V.  Goldsmith,  22  Wis.  488—178. 
Glasscock  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86 

Mo.  App.  114—834.  859. 
Gleadell  v.  Thomson,  56  N.  Y.  194— 

163,  650. 
Gleason  v.   Goodrich  Transp.   Co.,  32 

Wis.  85—185,   1291,  1298,   1330. 
Gleason  v.  Metropolitan  St.  Rv.  Co., 

99  App.  Div.   (X.  Y.)   209—1619. 
Gledliill  Wall  Paper  Co.  v.  Baltimore 
&  O.  R.  Co.,  119  N.  Y.  Supp.  623— 
623. 
Gleeson  v.   Virgini?    Midland  R.   Co., 
140    U.    S.    435—313,    1049,    1083, 
1265,   1475,   1479,   1501. 
Glenn   v.    Charlotte,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    63 

X.  C.  510—410. 
Glenn  v.  Lake  Erie  &  W.  R.  Co..  165 

Ind.   659—998. 
Gloucester  Ferrj'  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania, 
114    U.    S.    196—1733,    1747,    1758, 
1759. 
Glovinsky   v.   Cunard   Steamship   Co., 

6  Misc.  R.'p.    (X.  Y.)    388—1291. 
Glovinsky   v.   Cunard   Steamship   Co., 
4  Misc.  Rep.  212,  266 — 1296,   1330. 
Glover  v.  Atcliinson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129 

Mo.  App.  563—1434. 
Glover  v.  Cape  Girardeau,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

95  Mo.  App.  309—687. 
GIvn  V.  East,  etc,  India  Dock  Co.,  L. 

k.  7   App.  591—231. 
Glvn   V.    Xew    York,   etc.,    R.   Co..    85 

Hun    (X.  Y.)    408-1198. 
Godbout  V.  St.  Paul  Vn'um  D.  Co.,  79 
.Minn.  188—1127. 


CVl 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The    ri'fcrencos   arc   to    (lie    pagi'S.) 


GuiManl   v.   Grainl   Trunk    K.   r.«..    'u 

Mo.  202—1131.  1147,  1175,  1720. 
Godfriv  V.  Oliio,  etc.,  K.  C\>..  IKi  Ind. 

:w—\nnK 

Godfrey  v.  I'lillinan  Co.,  87  S.  C.  MU 

— 12!)4,  12!i:.. 
Goebel  v.  Cliicago.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  14!) 

111.  App.  154!)— 582. 
Goettcr  v.  Fickott,  61   Ala.  387—440. 
Goff  V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  3  El. 

&  El.  672-1183. 
Goff-Kirby  Coal  Co.  v.  Bessemer,  etc., 

R.   Co.,    13    Int.    Com.   Rep.    383— 

1976. 
Goggin    V.    Kansas    Pac.    R.    Co.,    12 

Kan.  410—45.-),  481.  482,  880. 
Coins  V.  Western  R.  Co.,  68  Ga.   190 

—1702. 
Golcar  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Tweedie  Trading 

Co.,  140  Fed.  503—2023. 
Goldberg  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  133  N.  Y.  561-1606. 
Goldbowitz   V.    Metropolitan    Express 

Co.,  91  N.  Y.  Supp.  318—280. 
Golden  v.   Manning,  2  W.   Bl.  916— 

256. 
Goldey  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  30  Pa. 

St.  242 — 458. 
Goldrick  v.   Union   R.   Co.,   20   R.   I. 

128—1081. 
Goldsmith  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12 

Mo.  App.  479—759. 
Goldsmith  v.  Great  Eastern  R.  Co.,  44 

L.  T.  N.  S.  181—459. 
Goldsmith  v.  Holland  Bldg.  Co.,   182 

Mo.  597—103,  1096. 
Goldsmith   v.   Tower   Hill   Steamship 

Co.,  37  Fed.  806—837. 
Goldstein    v.    Sherman,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Tex.   Civ.   App.)    61   S.  W.   336— 

741. 
Gomm  V.  Oregon  R.  &  Kav.   Co.,   52 

Wash.  685—1305,  1336,  1308. 
Gonthier  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

28  La.  Ann.  67—1351. 
Gonzales  v.   New  York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

.38  N.  Y.  440—1203,  1090. 
Gonzales  v.  New  York,  etc..  R.  Co.,  33 

N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  57—1073. 
Gonzales  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)   407—1242,  1263, 

1474. 
Good  V.  Chapin,  10  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  612 

—310. 


Good  V.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.) 

11   S.   VV.  854 — 480,  806.  854. 
Goodbar   v.   Wabash    R.   Co.,   53   Mo, 

Ajip.  434—8:5,  375,  1348. 
Goodfellow  V.  Detroit  Union  Hy.,  155 

Mich.  578—1159. 
Goodliold   V.   Piatt,    130   N.   Y.   Supp. 

355—510,  023. 
Goodin  &  Goodin  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co., 

125  Ga.  030-022,  680. 
Goodloe  V.  Memphis  &  C  R.  Co.,  170 

Ala.  233—1109. 
Goodloe  V.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co., 

120  Mo.  App.  194—1496,  1651. 
Goodman   v.   Oregon   R.,  etc.,  Co.,  22 

Or.    14—555,  574. 
Goodrich  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc..  Canal 

Co.,    29    Hun     (N.    Y.)     50—1505, 

1638. 
Goodridgc  v.  Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  35 

Fed.  35—716,  719. 
Goodsell   V.  Taylor,   41   Minn.   207— 

102,  1095. 
Goodwin  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50 

N.  Y.  154—258,  394. 
Goodwin  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58 

Barb.  195—272. 
Goodwin   v.   Boston,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   84 

Me.  203—1637,  1638. 
Goodwin  v.  Cincinnati  Tract.  Co.,  175 

Fed.  01—1168. 
Goold  v.  Chapin,  20  N.  Y.  259—379, 

402,  775. 
Gordon  v.  Buchanan,  5  Yerg.  (Tenn.) 

71—71. 
Gordon  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  34 

U.  C.  Q.  B.  224,  8  Q.  B.  44—744. 
Gordon  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  26 

U.  C.  C.  P.  488—773. 
Gordon  v.  Grand  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    546—974,  976,  989, 

990,  991. 
Gordon    v.     Hutchinson,    1    W.   &   S. 
(Pa.)   285—19,  25,  70,  71,  72,  119. 
Gordon   v.    Little,    8    S.   &   R.    (Pa.) 

533—75. 
Gordon  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 

N.  Y.  596—1058,   1260. 
Gordon  v.   West   E.   St.   Ry.   Co.,   175 

Mass.  181—975,  983. 
Gorham  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Fargo,  45  How. 

Pr.    (N.  Y.)    90—526. 
Gorham  Manf.  Co.  v.  Fargo,  35  N.  Y. 

Super.  Ct.  434—527. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


evil 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.), 


Gorman   v.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

194  N.  Y.  488—1087. 
Gorman  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  97 

Cal.  1—1711,  1720. 
Gorman's  Admr.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  K. 

Co.,  24  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1938—1081. 
Gorton  v.  Railway  Co.,  54  \Yis.  234 — 

1415. 
Gosa  V.  Southern  Ry.,  67  S.  C.  347^ 

549. 
Goss   V.    Northern   Pac.    Ry.    Co.,   48 

Or.  439—1493. 
Gott  V.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.,  110 

App.  IMv.    (N.  Y.)    18—1090. 
Gott  V.  Dinsmore,  111  Mass.  45 — 425, 

434,  446,  1452. 
Gottlieb  V.   New   York,   etc.,   R.  Co., 

100  N.  Y.  462—1107. 
Gottwald    V.    St.    Louis    Transit    Co. 

(Mo.),  77  S.  W.   125—1392. 
Gou"h    V.     Hamburg    Amerikanische 
Packetfahrt  Aktiengesellschaft,  158 
Fed.  174—2026. 
Gould  V.  Hill,  2  Hill   (N.  Y.),  624— 

310,  429,  460,  1449,  1451. 
Government  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Hanlon,  53 

Ala.  570—1588,  1591. 
Gowdy  V.  Lyon,  9  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)   112 

—34. 
Gowling  V.  American  Express  Co.,  102 

Mo.  App.  366—471. 
Grace  v.  Adams,  100  Mass.  505—430, 

431,  444.   1450. 
Grace   v.   St.   Louis   R.   Co.,    156  Mo. 

295—1215,  1239. 
Gracie  v.  Palmer,  8  Wheat.    (U.   S.) 

635—625.  642,  649. 
Gradert  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

109  Iowa,  547—963,  1008. 
Gradin   v.   St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   30 

Minn.  217—958,  988,  1057. 
Graefe  v.  St.  Louis  Transit  Co.,  224 

Mo.  232—1698. 
Graeff  v.  Phila.  &  R.  Co.,  IGl  Pa.  St. 

230—1188. 
Graff  V.  Bloomer,  9  Pa.  St.   (9  Barr.) 

114—234.  2.52. 
Graffam    v.    Boston,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    67 

Mo.  234—1.303. 
Graham  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

Minn.  81—1475.  1494. 
Craham  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Co., 

131  Iowa.  741—1279. 
<':raliam  v.  Chicago,  etc..  Ry.  Co.,  53 
Wis.   473-679. 


Graham  v.  Davis,  4  Ohio  St.  362—30, 

457.  577,  579,  1452,  1453. 
Graham  v.  Delaware,  etc..  Canal  Co., 

46  Hun   (N.  Y.),  386—1104. 
Graham  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  41 

U.  C.  Q.  B.  324—1268. 
Graham   v.   Macon,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    120 

Ga.  575 — 728. 
Graham   v.   Manhattan   Ry.   Co.,    166 

N.  Y.  336—1195. 
Graham  v.  McNeill,  20  Wash.  466— 

1266. 
Graham  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  66  Mo.  536 

—1037. 
Graham   v.    Pennsvlvania   R.   Co.,    39 

Fed.  596—1665." 
Graham   v.   Toronto,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   23 

U.  C.  C.  P.  541— 95S. 
Graham    &    Morton    Transp.    Co.    V. 

Young,  117  111.  App.  257—1345. 
Grand  v.  Livingston,  4  App.  Div.   (N. 
,^     Y.)   589—448. 
Grand  Rapids  &  I.  R.  Co.  v.  Diether, 

10  Ind.  App.  209—692. 
Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boyd,  65 

Ind.  526—1106,  1131,  1?,12. 
Grand  Rapids,  etc..  R.  Cu.  v.  Ellison, 

117   Ind.  234—1212,    1581. 
Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Huntley, 
38  Mich.  537—101,  948,  1120,  1213, 
1554. 
Grand  Tower  Mfg.  &  Transp.   Co.  v. 

UUman,  89  111.  244—171,  182. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.  v.  Ives,  144  U.  S. 

408—1517. 

Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.  v.  McMillan,  16 

Can.   Sup.   Ct.   543—482,   744,   768, 

770. 

Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.  v.  Stevens,  95  U. 

S.  655—418,  991,  1031.  1449,  1457. 

Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

191  Fed.  80.3—1985. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.  v.  Vogel,  11  Can. 

Sup.  Ct.  612—428,  466,  878. 
Granier  v.  Louisiana  W^estern  R.  Co., 

42  La.  Ann.  880—1027. 
Grant  v.  Baker,  12  Or.  329—1544. 
Crant  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Mo.), 

1.32  S.  W.  311—802. 
Grant  v.  Newton.  1  E.  D.  Sm.  (N.  Y.) 

9.5—1295,   1.300,   1375. 
Grant   v.    Nortliern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    22 

Ont.  Rep.  64.5-748.  7.50.. 
Grant   v.    Xorwav.    10   C.   B.   605,   70 
E.  C.  L.  605—191,   192,  229. 


CVIH 


TABLE  OF  OASES. 


(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


Grant  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  lOS  N. 

C.  462—1050,  lOOS. 
Grant  v.   Southern  Ry.  Co.,  84  S.   C. 

114—1605. 
Grant    v.     Wood,   21    N.   J.    Law    (1 

Zab.)  202—670. 
Granville  v.  Western  Union  Tel.   Co., 

37  Iowa,  214—91. 
Gratiot  Street  Warehouse  Co.  v.  Mis. 

souri,  etc.,   Kv.   Co.,   124   Mo.  App. 

545—133,  322,  514. 
Gratiot  Street  Wareiiouse  Co.  v.   St. 

Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   221    111.   418— 

408. 
Graven    v.    MacLeod,   92   Fed.   846^ 

1690. 
Graves  v.   Fitcliburg  R.  Co.,  29  App. 

Div.   (X.  Y.)   591—1356. 
Graves   v.   Hartford,    etc.,    Steamboat 

Co.,  38  Conn.  143—385. 
Graves  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137 

Mass.  33—493,  505,  522,  528,  1458. 
Graves  v.  Miami  S.  S.   Co.,  29  Misc. 

Rep.   (N.  Y.)   645—530. 
Gravev  v.  Rhode  Island  Co.,  26  R.  L 

80—1691. 
Graville  v.  ]\Ianliattan  R.  Co.,  105  N. 

Y.  525—1637,  1643. 
Gray  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.  R.,  168  Mass. 

20—1202. 
Gray  v.   Cincinnati    Southern  R.   Co., 

II  Fed.  683—1069. 
Gray  v.  Columbia  River,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

49  Or.  18—1048,  1575. 
Gray   v.   Jackson,    51    N.    H.   9—339, 

451,  744,  754. 
Gray  v.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co.,  39 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   536—1590. 
Gray  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124 

Minn.  1100—698.  690. 
Gray   v.   Missouri    River   Packet   Co., 

64  Mo.  47—9,  589. 
Gray    v.    Mobile    Trade    Co.,    55    Ala. 

387—1131. 
Gray   v.   New  York.   etc..   R.   Co.,   30 

Hun    (N.  Y.),  399—1397. 
Gray  y.  Rochester  City,   etc.,  R.   Co., 

61  Hun    (N.  Y.),  212-1097. 
Gray  y.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Mo. 

App.  666—615. 
Gray  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  119  Mo.  App. 

144 — 130. 
Grayson  y.  St.  Louis  Transit  Co.,  100 

Mo.  Apn.  60—1103,  1178. 
Grayson  County  Nat.  Bank  v.  Nash- 


ville, etc.,  R.  Co.   (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

79  S.  W.  1094—279. 
Great   Falls,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Hill,   34 

App.  D.  C.  304—1514. 
Great  Northern  R.  Co.  v.  Bruyere,  114 

Fed.    540—1426. 
Great  Nortliern  R.  Co.  v.  Harrison,  10 

Exch.  376—1017. 
Great    Northern    Ry.    Co.    v.    Loonan 

Lumber  Co.,  25  S.  D.   155—1832. 
Great  Nortliern   i{y.  Co.  v.  Shepherd. 

8  Exch.  .30—131,   1301. 

Great  Nortliern  Ry.  Co.  v.  SwaflSeld, 

9  Excli.  132—259. 

Great   Nortliern    Ry.    Co.    v.     United 

States,    155    Fed.   945—1773,    1974, 

1975. 
Great  Western  Despatch,  etc..  Line  v. 

Glenny,  41   Ohio  St.   106—181. 
Great   Western   R.   Co.    v.    Braid,     1 

Moore   P.   C.  N.   S.    101—1123. 
Great   Western   R.   Co.   v.   Burns,   60 

111.  284—118,  138,  139,  355,  365. 
Great    Western    R.    Co.   v.    Crouch,   3 

H.  &  N.  183—259.  205,  650. 
Great   Western   R.  Co.   v.   Fawcett,   9 

Jur.   N.   S.   339,   8  L.   T.  N.   S.  31, 

1  Mo.  P.  C.  N.  S.  101—1082,  1501. 
Great  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Glenister,  22 

W.  R.  72,  29  L.  T.  N.  S.  422—464 

465,   1460,   1464. 
Great  Western  R.  Co.  y.  Hawkins,  IS 

Mich.  427—456,  785,  793,  804. 
Great   Western   R.   Co.   y.    McCarthy, 

L.  R.  12  App.  218—465. 
Great  Western  R.  Co.  v.  McComas,  33 

111.  18.5—330,  .5.30. 
Great   Western   R.   Co.   v.   Miller,    19 

Mich.  .30.5—1390,   1425,   1426.   1427. 
Great  Western   R.   Co.  y.   Redmayne 

L.  R.  1  C.  P.  329—344,  613. 
Great  Western  R.  Co.  y.  Sutton,  L.  R. 

4  H.  L.  226—1785. 
Great   Westorn    R.    Co.   v.   Willis.    18 

C.  B.  N.  S.  748—542. 
Greb  y.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  41   Pa. 

Super.  Ct.  61,  72—1172. 
Greek-American    Produce    Co.   y.    Hli- 

noia  Cent.  R.  Co..  4  Ala.  App.  377 

—196. 
Green  y.  Atlantc  Coast  Line  R.  Co.-, 

83  S,  C.  498—622. 
Green  v.   Baltimore  &  L  R.  Co.,  206 

Mass.   331—286. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


CIX 


Green    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    128 

Mass.  221—614. 
Green  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  156  Mo. 

App.  259—824,  630,  910. 
Green  v.  Clark,  12  N.  Y.  343—244. 
Green  v.  Houston  Electric  R.  Co.  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  89  S.  W.  442—983. 
Green  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 

Mo.  556—570. 
Greene  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  163 

Ala.    138—320. 
Green  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 

Iowa,  410-184,   1347. 
Green  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.   Co..  38 

Iowa,  100—184,  1349. 
Green   v.   Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    121 

Mo.  App.   720—1111. 
Green   v.   New  York   Cent.   R.   Co.,   4 

Daly   (X.  Y.),  553—739,  1362. 
Green  v.  Pacific  Lumber  Co.,  130  Cal. 

435—1112. 
Green  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  36  Fed. 

66—1236. 
Green  Bay  First  Xat.  Bank  v.  Dear- 
born, 115  Mass.  219—232.  233. 
Greene  v.   St.   John,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   22 

N.  B.    (Can.)   252—117,  122. 
Green,  etc.,  Nav.  Co.  v.  Marshall,  48 

Ind.  596—402. 
Greenfield  v.  Detroit,  etc..  R.  Co.,  133 

Mich.     557,     95    N.    W.    546—1055, 

1071,  1145,  1146. 
Greenfield  v.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  134 

N.  Y.  Supp.  913—503. 
Greenfield   First  Nat.   Bank  v.  Mari- 
etta, etc.,  R.  Co..  20  Ohio  St.  259— 

1296.   1297. 
Greenleaf  v.   Illinois,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  29 

Iowa,   14 — 1541. 
Greenwald  v.  Barrett,  199  N.  Y.  170— 

502,  503,   1914.   1916.  1917,   1924. 
Greenwald  v.  Weir,  130  App.  Div.  090 

—1903.  1916. 
Greenwald  v.  Weir,  59  Misc.  Rep.  (N. 

Y.)   431—1917. 
Greenwald   v.  Weir,   115  N.  Y.  Supp. 

311—503. 

Grer-nwald  v.  Weir,   111   N.  Y.  Supp. 

235—501. 
Green-Wheeler    Shoe    Co.    v.    Chicago, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  Iowa,  12.3—312. 
Greenwich   Ins.   Co.   v.   Memphis,  etc., 

Packet  Co.,  1  Oliio  N.  P.  126—1300. 
Gropnwond  r.  Cooper,  10  La.  Ann.  796 

—  170.  192. 


Gregg  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  147  111. 

550—271,  380,  387,  393,  407,  645. 
Gregg   v.   Northern   Pac.   Ry.   Co.,   49 

Wash.  183—990. 
Gregory  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  Rv.  Co., 

100  Iowa,  345—99,  1077,  1412. 
Gregory   v.    Elmra    W'ater,    etc.,    Co., 

190  N.  Y.  363—1652. 
Gregory  v.  Stryker,  2  Denio   (N.  Y.), 

628—16. 
Gregory   v.    Wabash   R.    Co..    46   Mo. 

App.  574—169,  343,  377,  805. 
Gregory  v.  Webb,  40  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

360—1347. 
Gregory  v.  West  Midland  R.  Co.,  33 

L.  .J.  Exch.  155—466. 
Greinke  v.  Chicago  City  Ry.  Co.,  234 

111.   564—1496. 
Grev   V.   Mobile,    etc..   Trade    Co.,    55 

Ala.   387 — 418,  576,   1133. 
Grieve  v.  Illinois  C.  R.  Co.,  104  Iowa, 

659—572,   876. 
Grieve   v.   New   York    Cent.,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,   25   App.   Div.    (N.   Y.)    518 — 

407. 
Grieve  v.  New  Jersey  St.  Rv.  Co.,  64 

N.  J.  L.  409—1626,  1627."' 
GriflTee  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Int.   Com.  Rep.   194—1792,   1942. 
Griffin  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

89  S.  C.  547—173. 
Griffin  v.  Colvin,  16  N.  Y.  489—596. 
Griffin   v.   Great  Western   R.   Co.,    15 

U.  C.  Q.  B.  507—926. 
Griffin  v.  Manice,  166  N.  Y.  188—100, 

1095,   1216. 
Griffin  v.   Manice,   74   App.   Div.    (N. 

Y.)    371—100,  101. 
Griffin   v.   IManice,   47   App.   Div.    (N. 

Y.)    70—100. 
Griffin  v.  Manice,  36  Misc.  R.   (N.  Y.) 

364—100,  101. 
Griffin  v.  Southern  Rv.  Co.,  65  S.  C. 

122—1719. 
Griffith  v.  Atohison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   114 

Mo.  App.  591—1366. 
Griffith    V.    Cave,    22    Cal.     534 — 59. 

1514. 
Griffith   V.   Long    Island    R.    Co.,    147 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    693,  1694. 
Griffith    v.   Missouri    Pac.   R.   Co     98 

Mo.   168—1037. 
Griffith  V.  Utica.  etc.,  R.  Co..  6.3  Hun 

fX.    Y.),    626-1561. 
Griffith  V.  Kreizcr,  62   .\np.  Div     (N 

Y.)    414-100. 


ex 


TABLE  OF  CASEb. 
(The    refereiaia   are   to   tlie    payea.) 


Grigsby  v.  Cbappell,  5   Kich    (S.  C.) , 

443—77. 
Grig«by  v.  Tcxiia  &   1".  Hy.  Co.    (Tex. 

riv.  App.).  137  S.  W.  ; OH— 360. 
Gripps  V.  Austin,  20  Mass.    [3  Pfck.) 

20— 1)53. 
Grill    V.    General    Iron    Screw    Collier 

Co..  L.  R.   1   C.  r.  012- G. 
tirinies   v.    l^ake   Krit>   &    \V.    Ky.   Co., 

142  111.  App.  .132—541. 
Grimo.s   v.   PiMinsylvania  Co.,   30   Ftd. 

72 — 974    985,  'l23U. 
Grimmel  v.  Bord    (Neb.),  142  N.  W. 

S93— 1612. 
Grindle   v.    Eiistem    Express   Co.,    67 

Me.  317—519,  604,  619. 
Grinnoll   v.   Wiwtorn   Union  Tel.   Co., 

113  Mass.  299—88,  89,  92. 
Griunell   v.    Wisconsin   Cent.   R.   Co., 

47   Minn.  569—517. 
Grimshaw  v.  Ijake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

205,  N.  Y.  371—967 
Griswold  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64 

Wis.  652—1060,  1282. 
Griswold   v.   Haven,   25  N.  Y.   595— 

601.  228. 
Griswold  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  90 

Iowa,  265—455. 
Griswold     v.     New^     York      R.      Co. 
(Conn.),    4    Atl.    261—1033,    1331, 
1450,  1457.  1461,  1462.  1465. 
Griswold    v.    Webb.    16    R.    I.     649— 

1127. 
Groff  V.  Bloomer,  9  Pa.  St.  114—196. 
Grogan    v.    Adams   Express   Co.,    114 

Pa.  St.  523—495,  570,  1459. 
Grogan  v.  Brooklyn  H.  R.  Co.,  97  App. 

Div.   (N.  Y.)   413—1188. 
Groot  V.   Oregon   Short  Line   R.  Co., 
34    Utah,    152—605,   808,   818,   840, 
868. 
Gro.ssman  v.  Dodd,  63  Hun    (N.  Y.), 

324—426,  1333. 
Grossman   v.   Fargo,  6  Hun    (N.  Y.), 

310—401,  407. 
Grosvenor  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 
39   N.   Y.   34—172,    174,    184,    185, 
188 
Grote  V.  Choster.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Exch. 

251—1082.  1120. 
Grotsch  V.  Stfinwav  Ry.  Co.,  19  App. 

Div.    (N.   Y.)    130—1486.    1636. 
Grover   &   B.   Mach.   Co.   v.   Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  70  Mo.  672—533,  539, 
740. 


Groves  v.  Slaughter,  15  Pet.   (U.  S.) 

449—1733. 
Grows  V.  Muine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  67  Me. 

100—1270. 
Grubmau    v.    The    Ontario,    115    Fed. 

769—2008. 
Grund    V.    IVndergast,   58    Barb.    (N. 

Y.)    216—610. 
Grunfehli'r    v.    Brooklyn    Heights    R. 

Co.,   143  App.   Div,  '89—1577. 
G.  S.  Roth  Clothing  Co.  ▼.  Maine  S. 
S.  Co.,  44  Misc.   Rep.   (N.  Y.)   237 
—596. 
Guosnard   v.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

76  Ala.   453—543,   626,   638. 
Guess  &  Glover  v.  Southern  Ry.  Cf>., 

73  S.  C.  264—622. 
Guiterman  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  S-  S.  Co., 

83  N.  Y.  3.58—1993. 
Gulf    C   &    S.    F.    R.    Co.   V.    Coulter 
(T<-x.   Civ.  App.),   139   S.  W.   16— 
593. 
Gulf  C.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Jackson  & 

Edwards,  99  Tex.  343— 53fi. 
Gulf  Citv   Const.   Co.  v.  Louisville  & 
N.  R.  Co.,  121  Ala.  621—663.  691. 
Gulf     City,     etc.,     R.    Co.    v.    Hodge 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),   30  S.  W.   829— 
137. 
Gulf  Compress  Co.  v.  Alabama  Great 
Southern   R.   Co.,   100   Miss.   582— 
120,  706. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  A.  B.  Frank  Co. 
(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  48  S.  W.  210— 
240. 
Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Adair     (Tex. 

App.),    14    S.    W.    1076—269. 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   V.   Adams,   3   Tex. 

Civ.  App.  Cas.  §  422—1401. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Asmore,  88  Ga. 

529—1390. 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   V.   Baird,   75   Tex. 

256—741,   781. 
Gulf,    etc..    R.    Co.    V.    Barber     (Tex. 
Civ.  App.) ,  127  S.  W.  258—599,  622. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Barry   (Tex.  CiT. 

App.),  45   S.   W.  814—1982. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Batte   (Tex.  Civ, 

App.),   81    S.   W.   81.3—589,   916. 
Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Baugh   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  42  S.  W.  245—247. 
Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Beattie  (Tex.  Cir. 

App.).  88   S.   W.  367—599. 
Gulf,  etc..   R.   Co.  V.   Bell    (Tex.   Civ. 
App.),  58  S.  W.   614—1122. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CXI 


(The   references  are  to   the   pages.) 


Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Booth   (Tex,  Civ. 

3.pp.),  97  S.  W.  12S— 1550. 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   V.   Booton,   4  Tex. 

App.   Civ.   Cas.   §   230—517. 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   V.   Boston,   4   Tex. 

Civ.  App.  Cas.  §  66—261. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Browne,  27  Tex. 

Civ.  App.   437—687. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Butler,  26  Tex. 

Civ.   App.  494,   73   S.   W.   84—858, 

859. 
Gulf,    et«.,    R.    Co.    V.    Campbell,    79 

Tex.    174—1059. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Cason   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),   154  S.  VV.  367—825. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Chambers    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  149  S.  W.  1182—1383, 

1385. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Cherry  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),   129  S.  W.   152—623. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Chinskie,  53  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  21,  114  S.  W.  851—606, 

621. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  5  Tex.  Civ, 

App.  547 — 478. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  2  Tex.  App. 

Civ.  Cas.  §  512—238,  526,  527,  583, 

585,  613 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Clark   (Tex.),  18 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  628—271. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Cole,  8  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  635,  28  S.  W.  391—540,  1037. 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Compton    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  38  S.  W.  220—178,  188, 

313. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Coopwood    (Tex, 

Civ,  App.),  96  S.  W.   102—1251. 
Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Copeland,  17  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  5.5—1417. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crossman,  11  Tex, 

Civ,  App.  622—768. 
Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.     Cunningham 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  113  S.  W.  767— 

795,  817,  869.  925. 
Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V.    Daniels    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  29  S.  W.  426-1711. 
Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Darbv   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  67  S.  W.  12n— 363. 
Oulf.  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Dawkins,  77  Tex. 

228—1044. 
Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V.    Dinwiddle.    21 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  339—540. 
Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.   V.   Diinm:tn    (Tex. 
CTr.    App.),    81    S.    W.    789—585, 

797,  896. 


Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Dwyer,   84   Tex. 

194—269. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.   Co.  V.  Dwyer,  75  Tex. 

572—268,  733.  781, 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.   Co,   V,  Eddins,   7   Tex. 

Civ,  App.  116—458,  776,  847. 
Gulf,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Edloff,   89  Tex. 

454—750, 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  EdloflF   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  34  S.  W.  410—768,  779. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Elliott  (Tex,  Civ. 

App,),  26  S,  W.   636—479. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Ellison,  70  Tex.  491 

—33,  34,  785,  838. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Everett  &  Long 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),   83   S.  W.  257— 

289, 
Gulf,  etc,,  R,  Co.  v.  Freeman,  4  Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.  245—236. 
Gulf,    etc.,   Ry.    Co.   v.    Ferguson-Mc- 

Kinnev    Dry    Goods    Co.,    97    Miss, 

266—200. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Forst  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  34  S,  W.  167—594. 
Gulf,  etc.,   R.  Co.  V,  Fort  Grain  Co. 

(Tex.   Civ,  App,),  73  S,  W,  845 — 

1852, 
Gulf,    etc.,    Ry.    v.    Fort    Grain    Co- 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  72   S.  W.  419— 

1853. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Fowler,  12  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  683—285. 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   V.    Fox    (Tex.),   6 

S.  W.  569—1241. 
Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V.    Gatewood,    7^ 

Tex.  89—369,  469,  478,  483.  768, 
Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.   V.  Gilbert.   4   Tex. 

Civ.   App.   366—608,   616.   620. 
Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Gillespie  &  Carl- 
ton   (Tex.   Civ.   App.),    118   S.   W. 

628—869,  942. 
Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Glenk,  9  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  599—998. 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   V.   Godair,    3   Tex, 

Civ.  App.  514—592,  733,  747. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R,  Co.  V.  Golding,  3  Tex. 

App.   Civ.   Ca.s.   §   33—741,   768. 
Gulf,  etc..   R.    Co.   V.   Gray,   87    Tex. 

312—806. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Green   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.).   141   S.  W.  341—1430,   1447. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Griffith  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  24  S.  W.  362—741.  7.59. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Harris   (Tex,  Civ. 

App.),  72  S.  W.  71—767,  909. 


oxu 


TAni.K  Ob    CASK8. 


I  rill'    rofi'ii'iK'i'8   ure    to    the    pages.) 


Cull,   etc.,    K.   I  o.    V.    II.    H.    Pitts   & 

Son,   37    lox.    (.  iv.    App.    21J— 289, 

3:Jo. 
Gulf.  t't«.,  R.  Co.  V.  Iloiiii,  4  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  las.  §  20!)-r_':!.->.   12r)'J,   1710, 

1727. 
Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.   V.    ll.iuv,   84   Tex. 

G78— 1015,   1025. 
Gulf,  etc.,    K.   Co.   V.   Hoilgo.   10  Tm. 

Civ.  App.  543—350,  541.  611,  1(J02. 
Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.   V.   liolbrook    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  33  S.  W.  1028—1417. 
Gulf,  etc..   R.  Co.  v.  Holder,   10  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  223—509. 
Gulf,  etc..   R.  Co.  v.  Holt    (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  70  S.  VV.  519—12(57. 
Gulf,  etc..   R.  Co.  v.  Houghton    (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    03    S.    W.    7 IS— 858. 
Gulf,  etc..   R.   Co.   v.   House   VVatkins 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  88  S.  W.  1110— 

828. 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   V.   Hume,   87   Tex. 

211—137,   145,  479.  605,  773. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hume,  6  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  653—137,  353,  606. 
Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Insurance  Co.  of 
1       N.   A.    (Tex.   Civ.  App.)    28   S.   W. 

237—741,  755.  774. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ions,  3  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  019—1303. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.   Irvine  &,  Woods 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),   73   S.  W.  540— 

540,   793. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.   Co.  V.  Jackson.  4  Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  47—1362. 
Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.   V.   .Jackson    (Tex. 

App.),   15   S.  W.   128—1.350. 
Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.   V.   Jackson  &  Ed- 
wards   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  86  S.  W. 

47—934. 
Gulf,   etc..    R.   Co.   V.   Jacobs,   3   Tex. 

Civ.   App.   485 — 545. 
Gulf,   etc..    R.    Co.    V.    Jones,    1    Inl. 

Terr.  354 — 741. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Kemp    (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  30  S.  W.  714—591,  819. 
Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Key.  4  Tex.  App. 

Civ.   Cas.   §  257—516. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Kill'-brpw   (Tex.), 

20  S.  W.   182—1082.   1056. 
Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Kimble  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.).   109  S.  W.  234—874,  922. 
Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Leatherwood,  29 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  507—667,  770,  852. 
Gulf,   etc..   R.   Co.  V.  Lee    (Tex.   Civ. 
App.)   65  S.  W.  54—860. 


Gulf,  ete.,  R.  Co.  v.  I^vi.  76  Tex.  337 

—30,  325.  309. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Lewine  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)   29  S.  VV.  83.'->— 748. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Loonev,  85  Tex. 

158—1020,   1028. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Looney,  51  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  381—599,  602,  605,  870, 

934. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Loonie,  84  Tei. 

25!)— 270,  005,  619. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  J^owery  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.).  155  S.  VV.  992—175. 
Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Luther   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)   90  S.  VV.  44—1162,  1178. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Maetze,  2  Tex.  App. 

Civ.  Cas.  §  631—201,  458,  S.V,).  020. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Malone  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  25  8.  VV.  1077—708. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Martin   (Tex.  Cir. 

App.).  28  S.  VV.  576—540.  611,  617. 
Gulf,   etc..   R.   Co.   V.   McAulev    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  26  S.  W.  475—137,  599. 
Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  McCampbell  (Tex. 

Civ.  Ai)p.),  85  S.  W.  1158—599. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  McCartv,  82  Tex. 

608—440,  478,  589. 
Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  MeCormick   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  100  S.  W.  202—1391. 
Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  McCorquodale,  71 

Tex.  41—145,  350,  363,  835. 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   V.   MeCown    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)   25  S.  V^.  435—220,  269. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  McGown,  65  Tex. 

040—1031.   1451,   14.')9.    1463,    1465. 
Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Miami  Steamship 

Co.,  86  Fed.  407—1762.  1787,  1825, 

1826. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Moodv   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  30   S.   W.   574—1068,    1071, 

1351. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Moore   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  83  S.  W.  362—1703. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Nelson  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  139  S.  W.  81—623,  1906. 
Gulf,    etc..    R.    Co.    V.    North    Texas 

Grain  Co.,  32  Tex.  Civ.  App.  93— 

414,  649. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Patten  Mfg.  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  151  S.  W.  1158— 

651. 
Gulf,    etc.,    R.   Co.    V.    Pettit,    3    Tex. 

Civ.  App.  588—618,  619. 
Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Pickens    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  58  S.  VV.   156—239. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


CXIU 


Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.  V.   Pierce,   7   Tex. 

Civ.  App.  597—1563. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Pomeroy,  67  Tex. 

498—1123. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Porter,  25  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  491—834,  835. 
Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.   V.   Rather,   3   Tex. 

Civ.  App.  72—1417. 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   V.   Redeker    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  100  S.  W.  362—1250. 
Gulf,   etc.,    R.   Co.   V.    Roberts    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)  85  S.  W.  479—582. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Rowland,  82  Tex. 

166—1553,   1556. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Rvan,  4  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  Cas.  §  305—1229. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Shelton  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.)     69    S.    W.    653—966,    1155, 
1163,   1245,   1576. 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.    Shepard    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  132  S.  W.  90—1404. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Shultz   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  129  S.  W.  84.5—247. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.   Co.  V.   Simmons    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  28  S.  W.  825—593. 
Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.  V.   Smith,   10  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  338—1203. 
Gulf,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Somerville  Mer- 
cantile   Agency    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 
104  S.  W.  1072—346. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Somerville  Mer- 
cantile Agency  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  91 
S.  W.  321—608. 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   V.    Sparger    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  39  S.  W.  1001—139.). 
Gulf,  etc..  R.   Co.  V.   Stanley    (Tex.), 

33  S.  W.  110 — 478,  881. 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   V.   Stanley,    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  29  S.  W.  806—592. 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   V.   State,  97   Tex. 

274—1853. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Staton   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  49  S.  W.  277—832. 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   V.   Tennant    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  22  S.  W.  761—768. 
Gulf,  etc.,  xi.  Co.  v.  Texas  Star  Flour 
:Mill8    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  143  S.  W. 
1179—317. 
Cnlf.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  21  S.  W.  186—767. 
Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Travvick,  80  Tex. 

270—169.    189,  377.   797.  846. 
Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  'Irawick.  68  Tex. 
314—458,  477,  479,  481,  485. 


Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ware  &  Walker, 

34  Tex.  Civ.  App.  455—808. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  32  S.  W.  323—478. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wilbanks,  7  Tex. 

Civ.   App.  489 — 768. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wilhelm,  3  Tex. 
App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  458 — 458,  805,  806. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Williams,  70  Tex. 

159—1231. 
Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Wilson,   7   Tex. 

Civ.  App.   128—768,  779. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wilson,  79  Tex. 
371—946,    990,    1033,    1050,    1103, 
1715. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wittnebert,  101 

Tex.  368—561. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wood   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  63  S.  W.  164—1122. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wood   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  30  S.  W.  715—446,  797. 
Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.  V.   Wright,   1   Tex. 
Civ.  App.  402—440,  482,  540,  585, 
1028. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Yates   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  32  S.  W.  355—881. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  York,  2  Tex.  App. 

Civ.  Cas.  §  812—798,  881. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Zimmerman,  81 

Tex.  605—579. 
Guillaume  v.  General  Transp.  Co.,  100 

N.  Y.  491 — i52,  559. 
Guillaume   v.   Hamburg,   etc..   Packet 

Co.,  42  N.  Y.  212—234,  460. 
Guimby   v.   Boston,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   150 

Mass.   365—1463. 
Guina  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  67  N   Y 

596—1642. 
Guina  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  8  Hun 

(N.  Y.)    494—1644. 
Guinn  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Mo. 
App.  453—138,  155,  342,  363,  788. 
838. 
Gulliver  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  38  Til 

502 — 39,  199,  259. 
Gulzoni  V.  Tyler.   64  Cal.   334—1562. 
Gumb  V.  Twontv-Third  St.  Ry.  Co     58 

N.  Y.  Super.'  Ct.   1—1507. 
Gumby  v.  Metropolitan   St.   Ry    Co 

171  N.  Y.  63.')— 1.588. 
Gurley  v.  Armstoad.  148  Mass.  267 — ■ 

284. 
Gurley  v.  Springfield  St.  Ry.  Co.,  206 
Mass.  534—1625. 


CJilV 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(Tl>e   lofcrenccs   are   to   the   pages.) 


Guniey  v.  Belirond,  ;t   Kl.  A   I'.l.  622 — 

218,  224. 
Gurney   v.   Grand   Trunk    R.   Co.,   59 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  625—1297,  1208. 
Guthrie  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  11 

Lea    (Tonn.)    372—1120. 
Guy  V.  Now  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  30  Hun 

(N.   Y.)    399—1402,    1408. 
Gyle  y.  Joline,  130  N.  Y.  Supp.  761— 

994. 
Gwyn  Harper  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Carolina  R. 

Co.,   128  N.  C.  280—481. 
Gwynn  v.  Citizens'  Telephone  Co.,  69 

S.  C.  434—94. 


H. 

Haas    V.    Kansas    City.    etc..    R.    Co., 

(Ga.),  7  S.  E.  629—327.  369. 
Haas  V.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.,  128 

Mo.  App.  79—1109. 
Haas  V.   Wichita  R.   &  Co.,   89  Kan. 

613—1625. 
Haase  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Or. 

354—1018.    1021,    1058,    1624. 
Habeck  v.  Chicago  &   N.   W.  R.  Co., 

146  Wis.  645— 1406,  1430. 
Haberzettle   v.   Trinitv.    etc.,   R.    Co., 

46  Tex.  Civ.  App.  527—622. 
Hackett  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  N. 

H.  390—582,  593. 
Hadd  V.  United  States,  etc..  Express 

Co.,  52  Vt.  335 — 740,  755. 
Haddock  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Int.  Com.  Rep.  302—1864. 
Hadenleigh    v.    Paul,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

39  Minn.  3—992. 
Hadley  v.  Baxendale,  9  Exch.  341,  18 

Jur.   358—616,   619. 
Hadley  v.  Clark,  8  T.  R.  259—14,  340, 

359. 
Hadley  v.  Cross,  34  Vt.  586—1118. 
Hafer  v.  St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.,  101 

Ark.  310—882. 
Hawan  v.   Providence,   etc.,  R.  Co..   3 

R.  I.  88—1723.  1725. 
Hagar   v.   Donaldson,    11    Pa.   Co.   Ct. 

R.  252—677. 
Hagedorn  v.  St.  Louis  Perpetual  Ins. 

Co.,  2  La.  Ann.  1005—661. 
Hageman    v.    Western    R.    Corp.,    16 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    .353—1716. 
Ha^enloeher  v.  Coney  Island,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  99  N.  Y.  136—1560. 


Hahl  V.  Laux.  42  Tex.  Civ.  App.  182 

—25,  628,  »)40. 
Hahn   v.  St.   Louis,  etc.,  R.   Co.,    141 

Mo.  App.  453-^23,  865. 
Haile  v.   Clayton-Hoff  Co.,   61    N.   J. 

Law,  197—63. 
Haines   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.   Co.,    21) 

Minn.   160—1300,  1301. 
Halbert  v.   St.    liouis,  etc.,   Ry.,   Co., 

147   111.  App.  316—1603. 
Halden  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  3i» 

U.  C.  C.  P.  89—1614. 
Hale  V.  Barrett,  26  111.  195—644,  645. 
Hale  V.  Bonner,  82  Tex.  33 — 615. 
Hale  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  60  Vt. 

605—1050. 
Hale  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  36  Neb. 

266—821. 
Hale  V.  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co., 

15  Conn.  539—75,  76,  307,  418,  427, 

448,  449,  1452. 
Hales   V.    London,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   4    B. 

&  S.  66—134,  343,  344,  345,  605. 
Haley  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  21 

Iowa,  15—1402. 
Hall  V.  Bessemer  &  L.  E.  R.  Co.,  36 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  556—998,  1001. 
Hall  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Alien 

(Mass.),  439—197,  234,  235. 
HaU  V.  Cedar  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115 

Iowa,  8—1559. 
Hall    V.    Cheney,   36   N.   H.   26—132, 

419,  570. 
Hall  V.  Connecticut  River  Steamboat 

Co.,  13  Conn.  324—75,  1131,  1211. 
Hall  V.  Dimond,  63  N.  H.  565—626, 

645. 
Hall  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  34  W.  C. 

Q.  B.  517—386. 
Hall  V.  McFadden,  19  New  Bruns.  340 

—1231.   1238. 
Hall  V.  Memphis  &  C.  R.  Co.,  15  Fed. 

57—1436. 
Hall  V.  Murdock,  119  Mich.  392—101, 

1096,  1563. 
Hall  V.  Northeastern  R.  Co..  L.  R.  10 

Q.  B.  437—771,  1451,  1456. 
Hall   V.   Ogden    City   St.     R.   Co.,    13 

Utah,  24.3—1081. 
Hall   V.  Pennsylvania   R.   Co.,   1   Fed. 

226—327.  369. 
Hall  V.  Railroad  Co.,  13  Wall.  (U.  S.) 

367—23. 
Hall   V.   Rcnfro,   3  Mete.    (Ky.)    61— 

2G. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CXV 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Hall  T.   Smith,  2   Bing.   C.   P.   156— 

S5. 
Hall  V.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  28  S. 

C.  261—1258,  1722. 
Hall   V.   Southern   Ry.   Co.,   88   S.   C. 

430—1603. 
Hall   V.    Terre   Haute   Elect.   Co.,   38 

Ind.  App.  43—983. 
Hall  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  80  Mo.  App. 

463—737. 
Hallahan  v.  New  York,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

102  N.  Y.  194—1565,  1656. 
Halliday  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

Mo.   159—222,  485,  746,  770. 
Halihan  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71 

Mo.  113—1122. 
H^lverson  v.  Seattle  Elec.  R.  Co..  35 

Wash.  600—1089. 
Ham  V.  Canal  Co.,  142  Pa.  617—1397. 
Ham  V.  Delaware,  etc..  Canal  Co.,  155 

Pa.  548—1258. 
Ham  V.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  97  Ga. 

411—1209. 
Haman  v.  Omaha  Ry.  Co.,  35  Neb.  74 

1170. 
Hamburg   Amercan    Co.    v.    Gattman, 

127  m.  598—1297,  1299,  1300. 
Hamel   v.   Brooklyn,   etc.,   Ferry    Co., 

53  Hun    (N.  Y.)    634—1182. 
Hamil   v.   New   York,   etc.,   Exp.   Co., 

177  Mass.  474—545. 
Hamilton  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103 

Iowa,  325—282. 
Hamilton  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  23 

U.  C.  Q.  B.  600—466. 
Hamilton   v.  Great   Falls   St.  R.  Co., 

17  Mont.  334 — 1216,  1475,  1494. 
Hamilton  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 

51  N.  Y.  100—1014,  1411. 
Hamilton  v.  McPherson,  28  N.  Y.  72 

—595,  615. 
Hamilton   v.   Pittsburg,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

183  Pa.  St.  638—1447. 
Hamilton   v.   Texa-s,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   64 

Tex.  251—1060,  1061,  1283. 
Hamilton  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  53  N. 

Y.  25—949,  1156,  1703,  1720.  1722. 
Hamlton    v.    Third    Ave.    R.    Co.,    13 

Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.    fN.  Y.)   378—1426. 
Hamilton  v.  West  End  St.  R.  Co.,  163 

MnsH.  199—1124. 
Hamilton  v.  Western  North   Carolina 

R.  Co..  96  N.  C.  398—144.  147,  369, 

437,  602,  838. 


Hamlin  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  1 

H.  &  N.  408— 12G0,  1707. 
Hammond  v.  North  Eastern  R.  Co.,  6 

S.   C.    130—1050,   1054. 
Hampton  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co., 

42  Mo.  App.  134—64,  65. 
Hance  v.  Pacific  Express  Co.,  48  Mo. 

App.  179—570,  576,  822. 
Hance  v.  Wabash  Western  R.  Co.,  56 

Mo.   App.  476—438,  439,  441,  758, 

769. 
Hancock  v.  Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.,  131 

Mo.  App.  401—883,  887,  890. 
Hancock   v.   Leggett,    115   Ind.    544 — 

1560. 
Hand  v.  Bavnes,  4  Whart.   (Pa.)   214 

—14,  134,  349,  350,  582,  598,  638. 
Handley   v.   Houston,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   2 

Tex.  Unrep.  Cas.  282—1034. 
Hanks  v.  Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.,  60  Mo. 

App.  274—1271. 
Hanks   v.    Missouri    Pac.   R.    Co.,    92 

Neb.  594—1812. 
Hanley  v.   Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   154 

Iowa,   60—792,   830. 
Hanley  v.  Harlem  R.  Co.,  1  Edm.  Sel. 

Cas.  (N.  Y.)  .395—1083,  1106,  1117. 
Hanley  v.  Kansas  City  S.  Ry.  Co.,  187 

U.  S.  617—1761. 
Hanley  v.  North  Jersey  St.  R.  Co.  (N. 

J.  Sup.),  47  Atl.  45—1729. 
Hanlon  v.  Central  R.  Co.  of  N.  J.,  187 

N.  Y.  73—1158. 
Hanlon  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.   Co.,  109 

Iowa,  136—1025. 
Hanlon    v.    Milwaukee,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Wis.),  95  N.  W.   100—548. 
Hanlon  v.  South  Boston  R.  Co.,  129 

Mass.  31—1510. 
Hanna  v.  Nassau  El.  R.  Co.,  18  App. 

Div.   (N.  Y.)    137—975,  1136,  1443. 
Hanna  v.  Pitt  &  Scott,  121  App.  Div. 

(N.  Y.)   420—565. 
Hannibal,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Husen,   95 

U.  S.  469—1758. 
Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  111 

Til.  219—1046,  1261,  1576,  1662, 

1704,  1716. 
Hannibal,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.   Martin,   11 

111.   App.  386—973,  986. 
Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Swift,  79  U 

S.    (12    Wall.)    262—51,    131,    102. 

1136,  1144,  1291,  1297,  1.301.  1303 

1306. 


CiVl 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


(The  icfereucca  iire  to  tlio  pages.) 


Iliuiiion     V.     St.     Louis     Transit    Co. 

(Mo.)   77  S.  W.  15S— KiSO. 
llimrahan    v.    Manlialtan    K.    Co.,    53 

llun    (N.  Y.),  420— L'»r)5,   lo.lG. 
llaiualian    v.    Manliattaii    U.    Co.,    52 

llun    (N.  Y.),    111  —  1125. 
llansbprgir    v.    Soilaiia    Kl.,   etc.,    Co., 

S2  Mo.  Apii.  5()() — 121ti,  1U15. 
Hansen  v.   Flint,  etc..  R.  Co.,  73  Mis. 

34(t— 5.S8,    7.S0,    7(50. 
Hanson  v.  New  Jersey  St.  R.  Co.,  64 

N.  J.  L.  686—1215. 
Hanslev    v.    .Taniesvillc.    etc.,    R.    Co., 

115  N.  C.  602— i>74,  !)!)7. 
Hanson  v.   Boston  Elev.   Ry.  Co.,   182 

Mass.   425—1208. 
Hanson  v.  P^uropoan.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62 

Me.  84—1147,  1171.  1726. 
Hanson  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.,  18 

N.  D.  324—508. 
Hanson  v.  Havwood  Bros.  &,  Wakefield 

Co.,  152  Fed.  401—1993. 
Hanson   v.    Lancashire,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

20  W.  R.  297—1479. 
Hanson  v.  Mansfield  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  38 
La.    Ann.    111—1567,    1572,    1573, 
1627. 
Hanson   v.   North   Jersey    St.   R.    Co., 

64  N.  J.  L.  686—1217. 
Hanson  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  27  Misc. 

Rep.   (N.  Y.)   524—1617. 
Hanson   v.   LTrbana,   etc.,   St.   R.    Co., 

75  HI.  App.  474—1002,  1150. 
Hapgood  Plow  Co.  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.. 

61  Mo.  App.  372—412. 
Harbison  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 
24  Wash.  L.  Rep.  438,  9  App.  D.  C. 
60—1097.  16,39. 
Harby  v.  Southern  Rv.  Co.,  75  S.  C 

321—348,  925. 
Hardaway    v.    Southern    Rv.    Co..    90 

S.  C.  475—657,  684,  713,   18S3. 
Harden   v.   Chesapeake   &   0.   R.   Co., 
157  N.  C.  238—786,  795,  807,  830, 
892. 
Hardenbergh  v.  St.  Paul.  etc..  R.  Co., 

39  Minn.  3—1265,  1429. 
Hardin  v.  Chicago  &  A.  Ry.  Co..  134 

Mo.  App.  681—201. 
Hardin  v.  Fort  Worth,  etc..  R.  Co.,  33 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  44S— 996,  1012. 
Hardin  v.  Ft.  Worth  &  D.  C.  Rv.  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  100  S.  W.  905. 


Hardin    v.    I'ort    Worth,    etc.,    R.   O). 
(Tex.   Civ.  App.),   77   S.  W.  431— 
1214. 
Harding  v.  International  Nav.  Co.,  12 

I'Vd.  "168—738. 
Hardin  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  120 

Mo.  App.  203—597. 
Harding    v.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

36  Hun  (N.  Y.),  72—1715,  1719. 
Harding   v.    Philadelphia   R.    T.    Co., 

217   Pa.  69—1653. 
Harding  v.  Townsliend,  43  Vt.  536 — 

172S. 
Hardnian  v.  Booth,  32  L.  J.  Exch.  105 

—210. 
Hardinan  v.  Brett,  37   Fed.  803—606. 
Hardman  v.  Montana  Union  Ry.  Co., 

83  Fed.  88—382,  386,  415. 
Hardman  v.  Willcock,  9  Bing.  382— 

209,  532. 
Hardwick  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  85 

Ga.  507—1209. 
Hardwick  Farmers'  Elev.  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  110  Minn.  25— 
698. 
Hardy  v.  American  Express  Co.,  182 

Mass.  328—266. 
Hardv   v.   Atchison,    etc.,   R.   Co.,    32 

Kan.  698—1780. 
Hardy  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 

Fed.  657—1727. 
Hardy  v.  North  Carolina  Cent.  R.  Co., 

74  N.  C.  734—1117. 
Harker  v.  Dement,  9  Gill    (Md.),  7— 

107.  209,  333. 
Harkless  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  151 

Mo.  App.  463—1006.  1391,  1425. 
Harkness  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co  , 

73  Iowa.  190—91. 
Harlev  v.  Aurora,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.,   128 

Hl.^Xpp.  643—1575. 
Harmon    v.    Jensen,    176    Fed.    519— 

1029,  1279. 
Harmon  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    32.3—525. 
Harmon   v.    United    Rys.    Co.    of    St. 

Louis,  163  Mo.  App.  442—1547. 
Harmony  v.  Bingham,  12  N.  Y.  99— 

165,  .350.  351. 
Harms   v.   Hunt.    107   Fed.   628—882, 

886. 
Harned   v.   Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.,   51 

Mo.  App.  482—482,  484,  487. 
Harp    v.    Choctaw,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    123 
Fed.  445 — 127,  709, 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


CXVll 


Harp  V.   Choctaw,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.,    118 

Fed.  169—26,  1869. 
Harp  V.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  119  Ga.  927 

—999,  1390. 
Harp  V.  The  Grand  Era,  1  Woods  ( U. 

S.),  184—1361. 
Harper  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  219 

Pa.  368—1603. 
Harper  v.  Railroad  Co.,  37  Conn.  272 

—576. 
Harper  Furniture  Co.  v.  Southern  Ex- 
press Co.,  148  N.  C.  87—604,  621. 
Harrell  v.  Columbia  Elec.  St.  Ry.,  etc., 

Co.,  89  S.  C.  97—1700. 
Harrell  v.  Owens,  1  Dev.  &  B.  (N.  C.) 

273—27,   117.  343. 
Harrell  v.  Wilmington  &  W.  R.  Co., 

106  N.  C.  258—185,  187,  540. 
Harriman    v.    Interstate    Com.    Com., 

211  U.  S.  407—1773. 
Harrington   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

143  Mo.  App.  418—884. 
Harrington  v.  Lyles,  2  Nott  &  M.   (S. 

C.)  88—53. 
Harrington     v.     McShane,     2     Watts 

(Pa.),  443—8,  76,   110,  265. 
Harris  v.  Cheshire  R.  Co.  (R.  I.),  16 

Atl.  512—758,  779. 
Harris   v.    Citv,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   69   W. 

Va.  65—1065. 
Harris  v.    Delaware,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   61 

N.  Y.  656—581,  1375. 
Harris    v.     Detroit   City    R.    Co.,    76 

Mich.   227—1560. 
Harris  v.  Fargo,  113  N.  Y.  Supp.  577 

—622. 
Harris  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co..  15  R. 

I.  371—740. 
Harris  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.,  48 

Wash.  437—477. 
Harris  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  1  Q. 

B.  Div.  515—403,  431. 
Harris    v.    Gugfrenlieim,     138    N.    Y. 

Supp.  1037-104. 
Harris  v.   Hannibal,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   89 

Mo.  233—1032. 
Harris  v.  Howe.  74  Tex.  534 — 1451. 
Harris  v.  .Tex.  55  N.  Y.  421—390. 
Harris  v.   Louisville,  etc.,   R.  Co.,   35 

Fed.   116—1183. 
Harris  v.   Midland  R.   Co.,  25   W.   R. 

63—465.  906. 
Harris  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 
Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    181—737. 


Harris  v.  Northern  Indiana  R.  Co.,  20 

N.  Y.  232—804,  805,  806. 
Harris  v.  Packwood,  3  Taunt.  264 — 

165,   490,   576,   579. 
Harris  v.  Panama  R.  Co.,  5  Bosw.  (N. 

Y.)   312—581. 
Harris  v.   Pittsburg,   etc.,   R.  Co.,   32 

Ind.   App.   600—1232. 
Harris  v.  Pratt,  17  N.  Y.  249—199. 
Harris  v.  Puget  Sound  Elec.  Ry.,  52 

Wash.  289—1065,  1468,   1495. 
Harris   v.   Rand.   4   N.   H.   259—164, 

315. 
Harris    v.     Seattle,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    65 

Wash.  27—1002. 
Harris  v.  Stevens,  31  Vt.  79—1019. 
Harris  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  13  Fed. 

591—1100. 
Harrison  v.   Fink,   42   Fed.   787 — 992, 

1012,   1170,   1714. 
Harrison  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110 
E.  C.  L.   122.   1   C.  &  E.  540,  2  B. 
&  S.  122—90,  466,  873,  1504. 
Harrison  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  62  L.  J. 

Q.  B.  225,  68  L.  T.  268—122,  632. 

Harrison  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  74 

Mo.   364—350,   359,   436,   540,   543, 

819. 

Harrison  v.  Roy,  39  Miss.  396 — 71,  73. 

Harrison  v.  Stewart,  Taney's  Dec.  (U. 

S.)   485—624. 
Harrison  v.  Weir,  71   App.  Div.    (N. 

Y.)    248—98,  856. 
Harrison  v.  Weir,  69  N.  Y.  Supp.  957 

—828,  929. 
Harrison  Granite  Co.  v.  Grand  Trunk 
Ry.  System  (Mich.),  141  N.  W.  642 
— 444,  501. 

Harri.son  Granite  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania 

R.  Co.,  154  Mich.  48—305. 
Harrison  Granite  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania 

R.   Co.,   145  Mich.   712—303. 
Hart  V.  Allen,  2  Watts   (Pa.),  114— 

76. 
Hart   V.   Baxemdale,    16   L.   T.   N    S 

390,  6  Exch.  769—128,  186. 
Hart  V.  Capital  Traction  Co..  36  App 

D.  C.  502—1548.   1574,   1649. 
Hart  V.  Cliicairo.  etc.,  R.  Co..  69  Iowa 

48.5—23.  455,  824.  851,  1450. 
Hart  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  56  Iowa, 

166—556. 
Hart  V.  Fletcher  Land  Co.,   175   Fed 

985—1097. 


cxvin 


TABLK  OF  CASES. 
(Tho  ri'lcrt'iioi's  are  to  the  pages.) 


Hart  V.  lliuls..ii  Kiv.  K.  fo..  8-1  N.  V. 

0(5— ir)4_\ 
Hart  V.  Uu.Immi   K.  Bridge  Co.,  SO  N. 

Y.  622— 1  JO.S. 
Hart  V.  Ilydo.  5  Vt.  328— »31. 
Hart  V.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co.,  65 

App.  Div.   (N.  V.)   4!»;!--lUiS. 
Hart   V.   Metropolitan   St.  R.   Co.,   34 

Mise.  Kep.  (N.  Y.)  531—1072,  1156, 

1426,  I4;{4. 
Hart  V.   Pennavlvania  R.  Co.,   112  U. 

S.     331 — 400,    505,    523,    526,    890, 

1456.    1457,   1912,    1913,    1915. 
Hart  V.  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  N. 

Y.  37—754. 
Hart  V.  Spalding,  1  Cal.  213—596. 
Hart  V.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.,  80 

Kan.  699—1539. 
Hart  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Mo. 

255—1241. 
Hart  V.   Western   R.  Corp.,   13  Mete. 

(Mass.)    99—23,  547. 
Hart  V.   Western   Union  Tel.   Co.,  66 

Cal.  579—87,  92. 
Hartan  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,   114  Mass. 

44 — 1361. 
Hartley    v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Iowa),  89  N.  W.  88—766. 
Hartley  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115 

Iowa,  612—907. 
Hartman   v.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

39  Mo.  App.  88—242,  381,  392,  449. 
Hartshorne  v.  Johnson,  7  N.  J.  L.  108 

—629. 
Hartwell  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  15 

Ky.  Law  Rep.  778—294. 
Hartwell    v.    Northern    Pac.    Express 

Co.,  5  Dak.  463 — 435,  454,  480,  485, 

1452,  14.55. 
Hartwig  v.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   49 

Wis.   358—1233,   1601. 
Harty  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  95 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    119—1223. 
Hartzig  v.  Lehigh  Vallev  R.  Co.,  155 

Pa.  St.  364—1576,  1665. 
Harvard   Co.   v.   Pennsylvania   Co.,   3 

Int.  Com.  Rep.  257—1781. 
Harvey  v.  Atlantic  Coast  L.  R.  Co., 

153  N.  C.  567—1399. 
Harvey  v.  Connecticut,  etc..  Rivers  R. 

Co.,  124  Mass.  421—610.  618. 
Harvev  v.  Deep  River  Logging  Co.,  49 

Or.  "583—1288,   16-30. 
Harvey   v.   Dnnlop,   Hill  &  D.   Supp. 
(N.'Y.)    19.3—1122. 


Harvey  v.  Eastern   R.  Co.,  116  Mass. 

209—1613. 
Harvev  v.  Grand    Tiiink   Kv.  Co.,  Fed. 

Cas.'No.  6,  180  (2  llask.)   124—660, 

720. 
TTarvev   v.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   3 

Int.' Com.   Kep.  793—1791. 
llarvcy  v.   Proctor,   142  N.  Y.  Supp. 

709—1530. 
Harvey  v.  Rose,  26  Ark.  3—58,  59. 
Harvey  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,   K.  Co., 

74  Mo.  541—457,  493,  524,  576,  592. 
Harvey  v.  Terre  Haute  &  T.  R.  Co.,  6 

Mo.  App.  585—291,  592. 
Hasbrouck  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,    202    N.    Y.    363—1305,    1335. 

1339,    1378. 
Hasbrouck   v.   New  York   Cent.,   etc., 

R.  Co.,  64  Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.)   478— 

950,  1367. 
Haselton  v.  Portsmouth,  etc.,  St.  Ry., 

71  N.  H.  589—972,  1081. 
Haskell    v.    Boston    Dist.    Messenger 

Co.,  190  Mass.  189—107. 
Haskett  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  N. 

H.  390—595. 
Haslam  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  19  N. 

Y.  Super.  Ct.    (6  Bosw.)    235—38, 

253,  272. 
Hass  V.   St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   Ill 

Mo.  App.  70&— 1064. 
Hasse   v.   American    Express   Co.,   94 

Mich.   133—264,  385. 
Hassen  v.  Nassau   Elec.   Ry.   Co.,   34 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    71—1639. 
Hastings  v.  Boland,  136  Mich.  240— 

1681. 
Hastings  v.  Central  Crosstown  R.  Co., 

7  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   312—1640. 
Hastings  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

N.  Y.  Supp.  93—1486. 
Hastings  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 

Hun    (N.  Y.)    638—520. 
Hastings  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

N.  Y.  Supp.  836—837. 
Hastings  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  53 

Fed.  224 — 1581,   1598. 

Hastings  v.  Pepper,  11  Pick.  (Mass.) 
41—35,  75,  550. 

Hastings  Express  Co.  v.  City  of  Chi- 
cago,  135  111.  App.  268— .39. 

Hatch  V.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 
N.  D.  491—880. 

Hatch   V.   Pullman    Sleeping   Car   Co. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CXIX 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  84  S.  W.  246— 

65. 
Hathaway  v.  Haynes,   124  Mass.  311 

—227. 
flatten  v.  Railroad  Co.,  39  Ohio  St. 

375—1014. 
Hathorn  v.  Ely,  28  N.  Y.  78—392. 
Haug  V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  8  N, 

Dak.  2,3—1258. 
Uavemeyer  v.  Iowa  County,  3  Wall. 

(U.  S.)   294—390. 
Haver  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  62  N.  J.  L. 

286—949,  1175,  1434. 
Haverly   v.   State   Line,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

135  Pa.  St.  50—372. 
Hawcroft  v.   Great  Nortliern  R.   Co., 

8  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.,  362,  16  Jur.  196— 

350,  1227. 
Hawes  v.   Boston   Elev.   R.   Co.,    192 

Mass.  324—1112. 
Hawes  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64 

Iowa,   315—1544. 
Hawes  v.   Southern   R.   C!o.,   54  L.  J. 

Q.  B.  Div.  174 — 345. 
Hawk  V.  Chicago,   etc.,   Rv.   Co.,   130 

Mo.  App.  658—1,527. 
Hawkins  v.  Front  St.  Cable  R.  Co.,  3 

Wash.  592—1476,   1648. 
Hawkins  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  17 

Mich.  57—456,  578,  579,  1458. 
Hawkins  v.  HoflFman,  6  Hill   (N.  Y.) 

586—62,  234,  275,  285,   .526,   1291, 

1297,  1298,  1300,  1306. 
Hawkins  v.  The  Viola,  59  Fed.  632— 

1989. 
Hawkinsville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Living- 
ston, 132  Ga.  203—726. 
Hawlev  v.  Screvcns,  62  Ga.  347—749, 

1361. 
Haycroft  v.  Lake  Sliore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

2  Hun  (N.  Y.)  491—1587. 
Hayden  v.  Davi.s.  9  Cal.  573—328. 
Hayes  v.  Cami)bell,  63  Cal.  143—452, 

633. 
Haves   v.    l"\)rtv-Sccond    St..    etc..    R. 

Co.,  97  N.  Y.  259— 1224,  1489,  1506, 

1534,  1648. 
Hayes   v.    Kennedy,    2   Pittsb.    (Pa.) 

262—520. 
Hayes  v.  Michigan,  etc..  R.  Co.,   Ill 

U.  S.  22fV— 1511.  1534. 
Hayes  v.  Millar,  77  Pa.  St.  Rep.  238 

—67. 


Hayes   v.   Missouri,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    84 

Kan.  1—883,  936. 
Hayes  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

34  Hun   (N.  Y.)   627—1393. 
Haves  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  12  Fed. 

309—160. 
Hayes  v.  Railroad  Co.,  Ill  U.  S.  228 

—1104. 
Hayes  v.   St.   Louis   R.   Co.,    15   Mo. 

App.  583—1553. 
Hayes  v.  Wells,  23  Cal.  185—36,  110, 

523,  526,  527. 
Haygood  v.  1310  Tons  of  Coal,  21  Fed. 

681—627. 
Hayman  v.  Canadian  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  43 

Misc.  Rep.  74—273. 
Havraan  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  118 

Pa.  St.  508—1477. 
Hayman  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

8  St.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)   86—906. 
Haymarket  Theatre  Co.  v.  Rosenberg, 

77  III.  App.  183—1095. 
Havne  v.  Union  St.  Ry.  Co.,  189  Mass. 

551—1162. 
Haynes  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  41 

L.  T.  N.  S.  436—466. 
Haynes   v.   Wabash   Ry.   Co.,   54   Mo. 

App.  582—794,  804. 
Haynie   v.   Baylor,    18   Tex.   498—25, 

71. 
Haynie  v.  Waring,  29  Ala.  263 — 110. 
Havs   v.    Gainesville    St.    R.    Co.,    70 

Tex.  602—1131. 
Hays  V.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Tex. 

272—1724,  1725. 
Hays  V.  Monille,  14  Pa.  St.  48—641. 
Hays  V.  Paul,  51  Pa.  St.  134—57. 
Havs    V.    Pennsvlvania    Co.,    12    Fed. 

309—1788. 
Hays    V.    Riddle,    1    Sandf.     (N.    Y.) 

248—644. 
Hays  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  51  Mo.  App. 

438—1234. 
Ilayter  v.   Brunswick   Tract.   Co.,   66 

N.  J.  Law,  575 — 1434. 
Havward  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  32 

U.  C.  Q.  R.  .39,3—637.  645. 
Hayward  v.  Middleton,  3  McCord   (S. 

C.)    121—669. 
Hayward  v.  Middleton,  1  Mill  Const. 

(S.  C.)    186—669. 
Haywood  v.  Daves,  81  N.  C.  8 — 390. 
Hazard    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co..    1 

Bias.  (U.  S.)   50.3— 1056,  1145,  1211. 


cxx 


TABLK  OF  CASES. 


(The  ri'tVioiKH's  are  to  ttie  pages. 


Jla/,»'l  V.  Cliiiuuo,  vU\,  H.  Co.,  S2  K)\\ii, 

477 — loi"),   44!t,   4.->4. 
Ilii/inau  V.  llohokoii.  oti-.,  Co.,  li  Duly 

(N.   Y.)    i;JO  — I'iai.    U527. 
H.  C.  Judd  &  Rout  V.  Now  York,  etc., 

S.  Co.,  130  Fed.  DOl — ill. 
lli'ud  V.  Georgia,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  70  Ca. 

:?r>8— 14 IG. 
Headrick    v.    Virginia,    etc.,    Ry.    Co., 

4S  C.a.  545— l»!li. 
llealey   v.  City   Passeiiger    R.  Co.,  28 

Ohio  St.  23— 142G. 
Iloarn  v.  Louisville  lV  N.  R.  Co.   (Ala. 

App.),  CO  So.  600 — 384. 
llealh  V.  Cleus  Fulls,  etc.,  St.  Ry.  Co., 

HO    Hun    (N.   Y.)    5G0— 1580. 
llfath  V.  South  liend  R.  Co.,  40  S.  C. 

104—300. 
Heaton   v.   Alorgan's   La.,   etc.,   R.,    1 

Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  774—458. 
lleazle   v.   Indianapolis,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

76  in.  501—1501,   1512. 
Hebert  v.    Portland    R.   Co.,    103    Me. 

315—1004. 
Heck  V.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

1   Int.  lorn.  Rep.  775—1784. 
Ik'ck  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  51  Mo. 

App.  532—456,  570. 
Heckle  v.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  123  Cal. 

441—1561. 
Hedding  v.  txallagher,  72  N.  H.  377— 

1127. 
Heddles  v.  Railroad  Co.,  77  Wis.  238 

—1717. 
Hedge   v.   St.    Louis    &    S.    F.    R.    Co., 

164  Mo.  App.  201-1152. 
Hedges   v.    Hudson    River    R.    Co.,   49 

N.  Y.  223—384.   391,  393. 
Hedges   v.    Wilmington,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

73  N.  C.  558—1554. 
Heenrich  v.  Pullman  Palace  C'ar  Co., 

20  Fed.   100-1148. 
Heffron   v.    Detroit    City    R.    Co.,    92 

Mich.  406—1025. 
Hegi;man   v.   Western  Ry.  Co.,   13  N. 
Y.   9—947.    1080.    1084.   1114,    1118, 
1119,    1120.    1131,    1505. 
Hegenian    v.    Western    R.    Corp.,     16 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    3,3.3—1474. 
lleggen   V.    Fort   Dodge,    eitc,   R.    Co., 

150   Iowa.   31.3—1174. 
Heidcn   v.   Atlantic   Coast   L.    R.   Co., 

84  S.  C.   117—1372,   1381. 
Ileil  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Mo. 
App.  362—576,  592. 


Ileiiiemim    V.    Grand    Trunk    R.    Co., 
31    How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)    430—27,  460, 
815,  895. 
Heiiileiii    v.    Boston,   etc.,    R.   Co.,    147 

Mass.    130—1010. 
Heirn   v.   McCaughan,   32   Miss.    17 — 

1200,   1703,   1708,   1721. 
Hcituuin   V.   Cliieago,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   45 

Mont.  406—830,  865. 
Heller  v.  Cliicagn,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mich.), 

66  N.  W.  607—819,  822. 
Helliwcll   V.  (Jrand  Trunk   R.  Co.,  10 

Riss.    (U.   S.)    170—137,   138. 
Hellman   v.   Iloiladay,    1   WoUw.    (U. 

S.)   365—1300. 
Hidin  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  98  Mo. 

App.   410—859,   936. 
Helmlv  V.   Savannah  Office  Bldg.   Co. 

(Ga.  App.),  79  S.  E.  364—1530. 
Hemmingway  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
72  Wis.  42—1232,  1252,  1505,  1587, 
1675.  1677. 
Hemphill  v.  Chenie,  6  W.  t  S.    (Pa.) 

62—100,  257,  258. 
Hempstead  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 

28  Barb.    (N.  Y.)    485—746,  775. 
Henderson  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co., 

20  Fed.  437—64. 
Henderson    v.    Maid    of     Orleans,     12 

La.  Ann.  352—502. 
Henderson  v.  Mayor  of  New  York,  92 

U.  S.  250—1737,  1747,  1758. 
Henderson  v.  Nassau  Elec.  R.  Co.,  46 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   280—1634. 
Henderson    v.    Three    Hundred    Tons 

Iron  Ore,  38  Fed.  36—287. 
Henderson    v.    Walker,    55    Ga.    481 — 

45. 
Hendrick  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  170 

Mass.  44—594. 
Hendrick  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  136 

Mo.   .548—1010. 
Hendricks   v.    Sixth   Ave.   R.   Co.,   44 
N.    Y.    Super.    Ct.    8—1189,     1.563, 
1722. 
Hendrick's    Admr.    v.    American    Ex- 
press Co..  138  Ky.  704—347. 
Hendrix  v.  Knnsa-s  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

45  Kan.  377—1016.   1058. 
Hendrix   v.    Wabash   R.    Co.,    107    Mo. 
App.    127—441,  605,   606,   6.55,   860. 
Hengstler   v.    Flint    etc.,   R.    Co..    12.> 

Mich.  530—033. 
Hennessy    v.    St.    Ixiuis,    etc.,    R.  (  o., 
173  Mo.  86—1267. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CXXl 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Hennewell   v.  Taber,   2  Sprague    (U. 

S.),  1—34. 
Henning    v.    Louisyille    Ry.    Co.,    24 

Kj.  L.  R.  2419—1681. 
Hennington  v.  Georgia,  163  U.  S.  299 

—1752. 
Henry   v.    Atchison,    etc.,   R.    Co.,   83 

Kan.   104—309. 
Henry    v.    Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co.,    1 

Manitoba,  210—466,  571. 
Henrj-  v.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Ga. 

815^594,  606. 
Henry   v.   Cleveland,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   67 

Fed,  426—554. 
Henry  v.  Grant  St.  Elec.  R.  Co.,  24 

Wash.  246—1125. 
Henry  v.   St.   Louis,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   76 

Mo.  288—1710. 
Henry   Sonneborn   &,  Co.  t.   Southern 

Ry.  Co.,  65  S.  C.  502—1123. 
Hensler  v.  Stix   (Mo.  App.  1905),  88 

S.  W.  108—103. 
Hepworth  v.  Union  Ferry  Co.,  62  Hun 

(N.   Y.),  257—1156. 
Herbert  t.   St.   Paul  City   R.  Co.,   85 

Minn.  341—1092. 
Herbick  v.  North  Jersey  St.  Ry.  Co., 

67  N.  J.  L.  574—1223. 
Herdman  v.  New  York,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

62  Hun  (N.  Y.),  621—1201. 
Herdt  v.  Rochester  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

65  Hun    (N.  Y.),  625—1097. 
Herf    &.     Frericks     Chemical     Co.     v. 

Lackawanna   Line    (Mo.   App.),   73 

S.  VV.  346—203. 
Herf    &     Frericks    Chemical    Co.    v. 

Lackawanna    Line,    100    Mo.    App. 

164—607,  608. 
Hermann  v.  Goodrich.  21   Wis.  536 — 

207,  399.  402,  774,  776. 
Hermann  v.  St.  Joseph  Rv.,  etc.,  Co., 

144  Mo.  App.    147- 1139. 
Heme   v.   Carton,   2   El.   &   EL,   66— 

563. 
Hernsheim  v.  Newport  News,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,   18  Ky.  L.  Rep.  227—119,  357. 
llernck   v.   Gallagher,    60   Barb.    (N. 

Y.)    566—266. 
Herring    v.    .\tlantic    Const    Line    R. 

Co..  160  N.  C.  252—514. 
Herring    v.    Chesapeake,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

101    Va.  778—312,  314,  755,  858. 
Herring    v.    Galveston,    et-c.,    Ry.    Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  108  S.  W."977— 

1660. 


Herschberger  v.  Lynch   (Pa.),  11  Atl. 

642—1533. 
Hersfield  v.  Adams,  19  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

577—38,  40. 
Herstine  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  151 

Pa.  St.  144r— 1476,  1487,  1533. 
Hertzberg    v.    San    Antonio   Traction 

Co.    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),    120   S.   W. 

572—1569,  1687. 
Heshion  v.  IBoston  Elevated  Ry.  Co., 

208  Mass.  117—1650. 
Hess  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  40  Mo. 

App.  202—587. 
Hester  v.  Savannah  Electric  Co.,  130 

Ga.  454—1668. 
Hestonville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Biddle 

(Pa.),  24  Wkly  Notes  Cas.  156,  16 

Atl.  488—1278. 
Hestonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  102 

Pa.  St.  115—1122. 
Hestonville  Pass.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Connell, 

88  Pa.  St.  520—1591. 
Hestonville   Pass.   R.   Co.   v.   Grey,    1 

Walk    (Pa.),  513—1288. 
Hett  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (N.  H.), 

44  Atl.  910—280,  281,  328. 
Heugh  V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

5  Exch.  51—198,  211. 
Hewes   t.    Philadelphia,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

76  Md.  154—1533. 
Hewett   V.    Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    63 

Iowa.  611—242,  315,  354,  373,  739, 

744,  773. 
Hewlett  V.   The  Millie  R.   Borannon, 

64  Fed.  883-1996. 
Hewpon  v.  Interurban  St.  Rv.  Co.,  95 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    112—1156. 
Hevde  v.   St.   Louis  Transit  Co.,   102 

Mo.  App.  537—1213,   1500. 
Hevc  V.  North  German  Lloyd,  33  Fed. 

60-1991. 
Hevl  V.  Inman  Steamship  Co.,  14  Hun 

(N.  Y.),  564—372. 
Hevman  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

.54  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.   158-821.  (^m. 
Hovman  v.  Strvker,  116  N.  Y.  Supp. 

038— .306.  317. 
Hozel   Milling  Co.  v.   St.   Tx)uis,   etc., 

R.  Co..  3  Int.  Com.  Rep.  701—1791. 
Hibbard    v.   New   York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

15    N.    Y.    455—1068,    1155,    1273, 

1389,  1.'596. 
Hibl)nrd  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co..  33 

Wis.  565—88. 
Hibernia  Ins.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Transp. 

Co.,  120  U.  S.  166—520. 


cxxu 


TABLE  OK  OASES. 
(The  reforcuces  arc  to  the  page».; 


llK-k   V.   Missouri    I'lU'.   K.  To..  51    Mo. 

App.  5;{2 — 45b,  571'. 
Hickonbottom    v.     IVliiware.    otc,    R- 

Co.,   122  N.   V.  91—1706,   1715. 
liickey  v.  Hoston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Al- 
len  (M;u>s.),  429—1497,  1026,  1637, 
1642. 
UuU'v   V.  riiioago  City  Ry.  Co.,   148 
111."  App.     197—994,     1497,     1502. 
1571,  1628,   1699. 
lliokrv     V.     Kailroad     Co.,     14     Allen 

(Mii«s.),   429—1673. 
llickiev  V.  Cape  Cod,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120 

Mass.  257—1541. 
Hickory    Marble    &.    Granite    Co.    v. 
Southern   Ry.   Co.,   147   N.   C.  53— 
173.-),  1738. 
Hickox  V.  Naugatuck  R.  Co.,  31  Conn. 

281—1295,    1296,  1345,   1347. 
Hickb  V.  Do'rn,  42  N.  Y.  47—85. 
Hicks    V.    Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    108 

Ga.   304—1637. 
Hicks  V.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  164 

Ma-ss.  424—1479. 
Hicks  V.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  76  Neb. 

496—1021. 
Hiddink  v.  Woolverton,  67  Misc.  Rep. 

(N.  Y.)   611—583. 
Higby  V.  Gilraore,  3  Mont.  97—1544. 
Higg'inbotham   v.   Great  Northern  R. 

Co..  10  W.  R.  358—559. 
Higgins  V.  Bretherton,  5  C.  &  P.  2 — ■ 

626. 
Higgias   V.   Cherokee  R.   Co.,   73   Ga. 

149—1220,    1626. 
Higgins  V.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

Aio.  418—1063. 
Higgins  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64 

Miss.  80—1722. 
Hiwgins  V.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
28  La.  Ann.   133—455,   1455,   1458, 
1463.  1465. 
Hicgins  V.   New  York  Cent.,   etc.,  R. 

Co..  2  Pwisw.    (N.  Y.)    132—1637. 
Higgins  V.  Watervliet  Turnpike,  etc., 
Co..  46  N.  Y.  23—1155,  1166,  1181, 
1390,  1425,  1434. 
Hig?inson  v.  Weld,  14  Gray   (Mass.), 

Tor)— 350. 
Highland   Ave.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Winn, 

93  Ala.  309-1576,  1582,  1679. 
Higlev   V.    Gilmer,    3   Mont.    90—046, 
954,  974.  086.  992.  1016.  14«S.  1.^44. 
Hill  V.  Adams  Express  Co.,  77  N.  J. 
L.   19—169.  475. 


Hill  V.  lioston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  Masa. 

2S4— 431,  452,  493. 
Hill    V.    l^irlington,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    80 

Iowa,   19t)— 748. 
Hill  V.  Chicago  City  Ry.  Co.,  126  HI. 

App.   152-1501. 
Hill  V.  Cliicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa, 

228-66. 
Hill  V.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  S.  O. 

461—767. 
Hill  V.  Humphreys,  5  W.  &  S.   (Pa.) 

123—248.  261,  272,  343. 
Hill  y.  Leudbrtter,  42  Me.  572—163, 

650. 
Hill  V.  Mis.souri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  46  Mo. 

App.  517—767. 
Hill  V.  New  Haven,  37  Vt.  501—1545. 
Hill  V.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11 

La.  Ann.  292—1702,  1715,  1727. 
Hill  V.  Ninth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  109  N.  Y. 

239—1488,    1494. 
Hill    V.    Northern    Pac.     R.     Co.,     33 

Wash.  697—471. 
Hill  V.  Scott,  2  Q.  B.  371—465. 
Hill  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Ark. 

529—997,  1000. 
Hill   V.    St.   Ix)uis,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.,   67 

Ark.  402—240. 
Hill  V.   Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  N. 

Y.  351—431,  444. 
Hill  V.   Syracuse,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   63  N. 

Y.  101—1025.  1027,  139S. 
Hill  V.  Union  Ry.  Co.,  25  R.  I.  565— 

1727. 
Hill   V.   Western   Union   Tel.   Co.,   85 

Ga.  425 — 478. 
Hill  V.  Windsor,  118  Mass.  251—1567. 
Hilliard  v.  Goold,  34  N.  H.  230—1.394. 
Hilliard  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
6  .Jones  L.  (N.  C.)  343—381,  393. 
Hillis    V.    C:hicag'0,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    72 

Iowa,  228—65.   66,   68. 
Hill  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Boston  &  L.  R.  Corp., 
104  Mass.  122—399,  739,  754,  lit92. 
Hill  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Providence,  etc.,  S.  S. 

Co.,    113   Mass.   49.5—1992. 
Hillsdale   Coal   &   C.   Co.  v.   Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.,  229  Pa.  61—719. 
Hincklev  v.  Ne<w  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  56  N.  Y.  429—1.34. 
Hincklev   v.  New  York   Cent.  R.  Co., 

39    How.   Pr.    (N.   Y.)     127—753. 
Hinklev  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  3 

T.  &  C.   (N.  Y.)   281—765,  772. 
Hinsdell   v.   Weed,   5   Denio    (N.   Y.), 
172—163.  164. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  thf*  pages.) 


CXXlll 


Hinshaw  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  US 

N.  C.  1047—1243. 
Hinter  v.  Steamer  Napoleon,  3  Wall. 

(U.  S.)    5—56. 
Hinton  v.  Dibbiii,  2  Ad.  &  El.  N.  S. 

CGI— 6,  549. 
Hinton  v.   Eastern   R.   Ck).,   72  Minn. 

339—316,  572,  579. 
Hiort  V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Exch. 

Div.  18S— 280. 
Hipp   V.    Southern    R.    Co.,    50    S.   C. 

129—385. 
Hipsley  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

88  Mo.  348—1500,  1556. 

Hirsch   v.   American   Dist.   Telegraph 

Co.,   112  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    265— 

106. 

Hirsch   v.   American   Dist.   Telegraph 

Co.,  48  Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.)   370—106. 

Hirsch  v.  New  England  Nav.  Co.,  129 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    178—1777. 
Hirsch  v.  New  York  Dispatch  &  De- 
livery Co.,  85  N.  Y.  Supp.  198 — 498. 
Hirsch  v.  Piatt   89  N.  Y.  Supp.  362— 

259. 
Hirsch  v.   Steamboat  Quaker   Citv,  2 

Disney    (Ohio),   144—144,  385.' 
Hirschsohn     v.    Hamburg     American 
Packet  Co.,  2  J.  &  Sp.   (N.  Y.)   521 
—.531,  1206. 
Hirshfield  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  58 

Cal.  484—384,  398. 
HirU-  V.  Eastern  W.,  etc.,  R,  Co.,  127 

Wis.  230—1425. 
Hitchcock   V.   Brooklvn   City   R.   Cb., 

44  Hun  (N.  Y.),  627—1504. 
Hite  V.  Central  R.  of  N.  J.,  171  Fed. 

370-696. 
H.   L.   Halliday  Milling  Co.  v.   Loui- 
siana,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   80  Ark.   536— 
725. 
Hoadlev  v.   International   Paper   Co., 

74  Vt.  79—1600. 
Iloadley  v.  Northern  Transp.  Co..  115 

•Mass.  304—343,  372,  444,  451. 
Hoag  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.    8  N. 

D.  23—1248. 
H..;ir  V.  Maine  Cent.,  R.  Co.,  70  Me. 

0.5—940,    974,    1044,    1045. 
Hoare  v.  Great  Wretern  R.  Co.,  37  L. 
F.   N.   S.    186,   25    W.   R.   63—234, 
464. 
Ifol.lw  V.  Ix)n(lr.n,  etc..  R.  Co.    L.  R.  10 
Q.  B.   111—1257,    1709. 


Hobbs  V.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Ark. 

357—1016,   1423,   1429. 
Hobson  V,  New  Mexico  &  A.  R.   Co. 
(Ariz.),    11    Pac.    545—1544,    1546, 

1553. 
Hockfield   v.    Southern    Ry.    Co.,    150 

N.  C.  419—663. 
Hocum  v.   Weithcrick,   22   Minn.   152 

—1544. 
Hodgdon  v.  New  York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

46   Conn.   277 — 350. 
Hodges  V.  New  Hanover  Transit  Co., 

107  N.  C.  570—1608. 
Hodges  v.  Percival,   132  HI.  53—102, 

1094. 

Hodgman  v.  West  ^Maryland  R.  Co.    5 

B.  &  S.  173—785. 
Hoeger   v.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    63 

Wis.    100—1299,    1301,    1351,    1353. 
Hoelljes    v.    Interurban    St.    Ry.    Co., 

43    Misc.   Rep.    (N.   Y.)    350—998, 

1389. 

Hoffbauer   v.   Delhi,   etc.,   R.    Co.    52 

Iowa,  342—1390,   13!)6. 
Hofl-berg  v.  Bumford,  88  N.  Y.  Supp. 

9.50—568. 
Hoffman    v.    Cumberland    Valley    R. 

Co.,  85  Md.  39'— 539. 
Hoflfman  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  47—348. 
HofTman  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Rv.  Co., 

125  Mich.  201—634. 
Holl'man  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  45  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  1—1552. 
HofTman  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  87  N.  Y.  2,5—1182. 
Hoflfman  v.  Northern  Piic.  R.  Co.,  45 

Minn.   53—1028,    1704,    1712.    1720. 
Hoflfman  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  45  App. 

Div.    (N.   Y.)    586—1222,    1488. 
HofTman  Heading  &  Stave  Co.  v.  St. 

Louis,   etc.,    R.   Co.,    119   Mo.   App. 

49.5—142,    301. 
Iloflford   V.  New  York  Cent.,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,   43   Pa.   Super.    Ct.   303—1335, 

1354,  1379,  1384. 
Hofnagle  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  55  N.  Y.  608—552.  1567. 
Hognn    V.    Boston    Elev.   R.    Co.,    195 

Ma.ss.   31.3—1206. 
Hogan  V.   Central   Park,  etc.,  R.   Co 

124  N.  Y.  647—1588. 
Hogan   V.   Manliattan  R.   Co.,   149  N 

Y.  23—1508. 


CXXIV 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  reference*  are  to  the  pages.) 


Hojjnor  t.   Boston  Elov.  Ry.  Co.,   198 

.\hiAS.   260 — !14!l.   !>.'>;").   9;V(). 
Hohl     V.     Xorddeuk'her     I^loyd,     175 

Foil.  444— -2018. 
Uolil    V.     Nordilfiitschor    Lloyd,     109 

Ki'd.  990—2011. 
Uolbiook  V.  Iticii,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  N. 
Y.    2:57— 147t).     1478,      1479.     1504, 
1500.  lilU.  1512.  ISO."?,  1G5G. 
Iloloonib    V.    Town   of    Dauby,    51    Vt. 

4  2  S— 10(10. 
IIoMon  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  54 

N.  Y.  602—590. 
llolderni'ss    v.    CoUinson,    1    M.   &   R. 

55.  7   B.  &  C.  212—15,   16,  630. 
Iloldridge   v.   Utica.   etc.,   R.   Co.,   56 

Raib.    (N.  Y.)    191—1350,  1531. 
llolladav   V.    Kennard.    12    Wall.    (U. 

S.)    254—6,  26.  339,   1133. 
Ilolhihan  v.  Metropolitan  St.  Rv.  Co., 

73  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    164—1535. 
Holland  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113 

Mo.  App.  694—924,  925. 
Holland  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   163 

Mo.   App.   251—877. 
H<d!and  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,   139 
Mo.   App.   702—444,   834,   842,  884, 
1917. 
Ilnlland  V.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co., 

157  Mo.  App.  476—1669. 
Holland  V.  St.  Loui.s  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105 

Mo.  App.  117—1107,  1632. 
Holland    v.    West    End    Ry.    Co.,    155 

]Ma33.  387—1124.  1489,  1595. 
Hoi  ley  V.  Atlanta  St.  Ry.  Co..  61  Ga. 

215 — 49.  945,  1186,  1215,  1407. 
Hollidav  V.  St.  Leonard,  103  E.  C.  L. 

]92— 85. 
Hollidav  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

Mo.  159—771,  772. 
Hdlingsworth  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  72 

S.  C.  114—1272. 
Hollins  V.  Fowler,  7  H.  L.  757,  766— 

280. 
Hollister   v.    Nowlen,    19    Wend.    (M". 
Y.)  2.34 — 24,  30,  30,  44,  62,  76,  313, 
424.    426.    429,    464,   490,   527,    948, 
1306,  1338,  1451. 
Hollowav  V.   Passadona,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

130  Cal.  177—1080. 
HoUv  V.  Atlantic  St.  R.  Co.,  61   Ga. 

215 — 45.  945,  1186,  1215,  1407. 
Hollv  V.   Southern   Ry.   Co.,   119  Ga. 
767-1331. 


lluliMe.s   V.  Alleghany  Tract.  Co.,   153 

I'a.   152—1018. 
Holmes    V.    Ashtabula   R.   T.    Co.,    10 

U.    C.    D.    038-1215. 
Holmes  v.   Carolina  Cent.  R.  Co,,  94 

M.  C.  31S— 1714,  1720. 
Holmes  V.  German  Security  Bank,  87 

Pa.   St.  525—233. 
Holmes  V.  North  German  Lloyd  S.  S. 

Co.,   184  N.  Y.  280—2040. 
Holmes  v.  North  German  Lloyd  S.  S. 
Co.,    100   App.   Uiv.    (N.   Y.)    36— 
1332. 
Holmes  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Sawy. 

(U.   S.)    262—1590. 
Holsapple   V.   Rome,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    86 
N.  Y.  275—461,  519,  820,  821,  895, 
1463. 
Holt   V.   Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    174 

Mo.  .524-1425. 
Holt  V.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Mo. 

App.  203—956.   1032. 
Holt  V.  Southwestern  Mo.  Elec.  R.  Co., 

84  Mo.  App.  44.3—1090,  1124. 
Holt  V.  Westeott,  43  ]\1e.  445—670. 
Holtzelaw  v.  Dufl".  27  Mo.  395—381. 
Holvnian   v.    KaiiawJia   &  M.  Ry.  Co., 

65    W.   Va.   264—1550. 
Holzab  V.   New   Orleans,   etc.,  R.  Co., 

38  La.  Ann.   185—1580. 
Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  W^estern  Transp.  Co., 

51  N.  Y.  9.3—272. 
Homesly  v.  Elias,  66  N.  C.  330—240. 
Honduras,  etc.,  Co.  v.  State  Board,  54 

N.  J.  L.  274—1735. 
Honegsberger  v.   Second  Ave.  R.  Co., 

2  Abb.  Ct.  App.  Dec.  378—1588. 
Honeymnn  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   13 

Or."  352—97.  1207. 
Honeyman  v.  Oregon  &  California  R. 

R. 'Co.,   13  Or.   352—97. 
Hood  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  20  U, 

C.  C.  P.  301—466,  895. 
Hood   V.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   22 

Conn.  1,  .502—739,  755. 
Hood  V.  North  Eastern  R.  Co.,  19  W, 

R.  52.3-1228. 
Hood  Rubber  Co.  v.  Rutland  Transii 

Co.,  16  Fed.  790—2035. 
Hooker   v.    Boston   &  M.   R.  Co.,  209 

Mass.  598—1334. 
Hooker  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission, 188  Fed.  242—1873. 
Hooper  v.  California,  155  U.  S.  648— 
1735,  1768. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


cxxv 


Hooper   v.   Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    27 

Wis.  81—74,  402,  728,  730,  776. 
Hooper  v.  London,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  43  L. 

T.   570—1363. 
Hooper  v.  Rathbone,  Taney's  Dec.   (U. 

S.)   519—577. 
Hooper  v.  Wells,  27  Call,  11—26,  81, 

454,  518. 
Hoosier  Stone  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  131  Ind.  575—151. 
Hope    V.    Delaware,    etc..    Canal    Co. 
(Mich.),   69  N.   W.  487—739,   767. 
Hopkins   v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   36 

N.  H.  9—1715,  1722,  1726. 
Hopkins  v.  United  States,   171  U.  S. 

578—1738,  1758. 
Hopkins  v.  Utah  N.  Rv.  Co.,  2  Idaho, 

280-1544. 
Hopkins  v.  Westcott,  6  Blatchf.    (U. 
S.)   64—425,  491,  1291,  1333,  1451, 
1453. 
Hoppe    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    61 

Wis.  357—1510. 
Hopper   V.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    91 

Iowa,  639—720. 
Hopper  V.  Denver  &  R.  G.  R.  Co.,  155 

Fed.  273—1496. 
Horgan  v.  Boston  Elev.  Ry.  Co.,  208 

Mass.  287 — 979,  1152. 
Horn  V.  Southern  Ry.,  78  S.  C.  67 — 

1251. 
Ilorne  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  8  C. 

P.    131—542,   618. 
Home-Andrews     Commi'ision     Co.     v. 

Georgia  R.  Co.,  136  Ga.  116—179. 
Hi.rner   v.   United   States,    143    U.    S. 

207—1944. 
Hornesby  v.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.    120 

Ga.  91.3—1390. 
Hornthall  v.  Roanoke,  etc.,  Steamboat 

Co.,  107  N.  C.  76—368. 
Horowitz  V.  Hamburg-American  Pack- 
et Co.,  18  Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)   24 — 
1474.  1487. 
Hnrspman  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  31 

U.  C.  Q.  B.  535—193. 
Hosea  v.  McCrary,  12  Ala.  349 — 109. 
Hosking   v.    Southern    Pac.    Co.     148 

Til.  App.  11-1.346.  1.347. 
HoHkins  V.   Missouri    Pac.   R.   Co.,    19 

Mo.  App.  315—437. 
TTdKkins   v.   Northern    Pac.   R.   Co     39 

Mont.  .^;I4— 1049. 
Honmer    v.    Old    Colonv    R.    Co.,    156 
Mas^.  .>06— 14.50,   1465. 


Ilostetter   v.    Baltimore,    etc.,   R.   Co., 

11  Atl.  609    (Pa.),  32  Am.  &  Eng. 

R.  Cas.  549—436,  740,  751. 

Hotchkiss  V.   Artisans'  Bank,  2  Abb. 

Ct.   App.   Dec.    (N.   Y.)    403—207, 

272. 

Hotel  Co.  V.  Camp,  97  Ky.  424 — 102. 

Hot    Springs    R.    Co.    v.    Deloney,    65 

Ark.  177—1416. 
Hot   Springs   R.    Co.   v.   Hudgins,   42 

Ark.  485— 5G9. 
Hot  Springs  R.  Co.  v,  Trippe,  42  Ark. 

465—778,  780. 
Houck  V.    Southern   Pac.   R.    Co.,   38 

Fed.  226—1069,  1143. 
Hough  V.  Railway  Co.,  100  U.  S.  226 

—1543. 
Houghton    V.    Louisville   Ry.    Co.,    26 

Ky.  L.  R.  393—1681. 
House   V.   Chicago   &   N.   W.   Ry    Co 

(S.  D.),  138  N.  W.  809—1387. 
Housem      v.      Merchants'      Dispatch 

Transp.  Co.,  104  Mich.  300—597. 
Houseman  v.  Fargo,  124  U.  S.  Supp 

1086—1837. 
Houston  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

La.  Ann.  796—1270. 
Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Nelson   (Tex 

Civ.  App.),  77  S.  \\\  978—1214. 
Houston   Electric   Co.   v.   Park    (Tex 

Civ.  App.),  1?5  S.  W.  229—1172. 
Houston,  etc.,  Nav.  Co.  v.  Dwyer    29 

Tex.  376—30.  ' 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  49 
Tex.  748—220,  226,  234,  235,  23tf, 
238.  385.  398. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  147  S.  W.  353— 
130.>,  1355,  1377. 
Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Batchler,  37 

Tex.  Civ.  App.   116—998. 
Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Batchler,  32 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  14 — 997. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Batchler  (Tex 

Civ.  App.),  73  S.  W.  981-1714 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barron   (Tex 

Civ.  App.),    124  S.  W.   996—599 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bath,  17  Tex 

T'lv.   App.  697 — 579. 
Houston,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Booiim     57 

Tex.  1,52—1717,  1728. 
Houston,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Bolline     59 
Ark.  395-1044.  ' 

Houston,    etc.,   R.    Co.    v.    Buchanan 


GXXVl 


TABLE  OF  CASKS. 
(Tho   roforcncrfl   ure   to   the   pages.) 


(Tex.  Cir.  App.K  SJ  S.  \V.   KC.T  — 

l>0!>. 
Houston,    etc.,    K.    Co.    v.    lUu-lianan 

(IVx.   Civ.   App.).   <JJ    S.   W.   I'.i'J— 

934. 
Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Burke,  55  Tex. 

323—23.  458.  52«,  G14. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bush  (Tex.), 

133  S.  \V.  245—1153,  1172. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bryant  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  72  S.  W.  8S5— 1071, 

1573. 
Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  91 

Tex.  551—144. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clemmons,  55 

Tox.  8S— 1572,  1G28. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  88  Tex. 

593—486. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  11  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  24—458. 
Houston,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis    (Tex, 

Civ.  App.),  31  S.  W.  308—510. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ford,  53  Tex. 

3G4— 999. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Foster    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  86  S.  W.  44—599. 
Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Goodvear 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  66  S.  W.  862— 

1225. 
Houston,   etc..  R.   Co.  v.   Gurbott,  49 

Tex.  573—1237. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hampton,  64 

Tex.  427—1050. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ilarn,  44  Tex. 

628-316. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harry,  63  Tex. 

256—268. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hester  (Tex.) 

7  S.  W.  776—926. 
Houston,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Hill    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  128  S.  W.  445-928. 
Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Hodde,    42 

Tex.  467—181,  182,  183. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hogg,  2  Tex 

Unrcp.  Caa.  544 — 213. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tnman    (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),   134   S.   W.   275—1909. 
Houston,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Iseo    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  60  S.  W.  313—1215. 
Houston,   etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  62 

Tex.  209—589. 
Houston,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Kemmendo 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  131  S.  W.  634— 

1906. 


Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kohn,  22  Tex. 

Civ.   App.    11—1225. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  104  Tex. 

82—1425. 
Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Lee    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  123  S.  W.  154—1417. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Leslie,  57  Tex. 

83—1678,  1718. 
Houston,    etc..    11.    Co.    v.    Lewis,    103 

Tex.  452—1907,  1911,   1925. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Loeller  (Tex.) 

51   S.  W.  536—1560. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maves    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  97  S.  VV.  318—921. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCullough, 

22  Tex.  Civ,  App.  208—1058. 
Houston,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   McGlossnm, 

1  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  224 — 575. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McNeel   (lex. 

Civ.  App.),  76  S.  W.  206—1712. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  49  Tex. 

31—988,  1059,  1008,  1145,  1572. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ney  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  58  S.  W.  43—613,  741. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Norris    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  41  S.  W.  708—1056. 
Houston,  etc.,  R,  Co.  v.  Park,  1  Tex, 

App.  Cas.  §  332—741,  755. 
Houston,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Perkins,  21 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  508 — 69,    1190. 
Houston,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Phillo  (Tex.), 

69  S.  W.  994—1195. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richards,  20 

Tex.   Civ.   App.   203—1200. 
Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Rittcr,    10 

Tex.   Civ.   App.   482—1432. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Roberts   (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    126    S.    W.    890—841. 

868. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schmidt,   01 

Tex.   282—1608. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scale,  28  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  364—1372. 
Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Smith,    63 

Tex.  322—136,   147,   158,   162,   353, 

610. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  32  S.  W.  710—1250. 
Houston,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Stewart,   14 

Tex.   Civ.   App.   703-1611,   1014. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Swancev  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  128  S.  W.  677—1110. 
Houston,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.  v.   Trararacll, 

28  Tex.  Civ.  App.  312—847. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


CXXVll 


Houston,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Washington 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  30  S.  W.  719— 

516,  985. 
Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Williams 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  31   S.  W.  556— 

458,  516,  585,  593,  595. 
Houston  &  T.  C.  R.  Co.  v.  Buchanan, 

3S  J  ex.  Civ.  App.  165,  94  S.  W.  199 

—148,  790. 
Houston  &  T.  C.  R.  Co.  v.  Cheatham 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  113  S.  W.  777— 

1502. 
Houston  &  T.  C.  R.  Co.  v.  Foster  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  86  S.  W.  44—349. 
Houston    &    T.    C.    R.    Co.   v.    Harris 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),   120   S.   W.   500, 

1.550. 
Houston  &  T.   C.  R.   Co.  v.  Johnson 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  103  S.  W.  239— 

1052. 
Houston   &   T.   C.   R.   Co.   v.   Keeling 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  142  S.  W.  108— 

1523. 
Houston   &   T.   C.   R.   Co.   v.  Lindsev 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  110  S.  W,  995-^ 

1504. 
Houston    &    T.    C.    R.    Co.   v.    Mayes 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  97   S.  W.  318— 

796,  817. 
Houston    &    T.    C.    R.    Co.    v.    Mayes 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  83  S.  W.  53—149. 
Houston  &  T.  C.  R.  Co.  v.  Rust,  58 

Tex.  98—720. 
Houston    &    T.   C.    R.    Co.   v.   United 

States,  168  Fed.  895—1979. 
Houston  D.  &  N.  Co.  v.  Insurance  Co., 

89   Tex.    1—1852. 
Houtz  V.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  33  Utah 

175—887,  897,  932. 
Hover  v.  Barkhoof,  44  N.  Y.  113—85. 
Howard  v.  American  Express  Co.,  47 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  416—288. 
Howard  v.  Central  of  Ga.  R.   Co.,  9 

Ca.  .\pp.  617—1130. 
Howard   v.   Chioa;,'o,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   61 

Miss.  194—1025,  1455. 
Howard      v.      Macondray,      7      Gray 

(Mass.)    516—642,  648. 
Howard  v.  Shepard,  9  M.  Gr.  &  S.  296 

— 222. 
Howard  F>xp.  Co.  v.  Wile,  64  Pa.  St. 

201—7. 
Howard  Supplv  Co.  v.  Chrsapeake  & 

0.   Ry.  Co..   102   Fed.   188—1887. 


Howatt  v.  Barrett,  78  Misc.  Rep.   (N. 

Y.)    156—1905. 
Howatt  v.  Barrett,   137  N.  Y.  Supp. 

915—629. 
Howe  V.  Oswego,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Barb. 

(X.  Y.)    121—27,   260. 
Howell  V.  Lansing  City  Elec.  R.  Co., 

136  Mich.  432—1105. 
Howell  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  2 

Int.  Com.  Rep.   162—1782,   1790. 
Hower   v.    United   Traction    Co.,    231 

Pa.  626—1668. 
Howland    v.    Milwaukee    R.    Co.,    54 

Wis.  226—1063. 
Howland   v.   Oakland   Consol.   St.   R. 

Co.,  110  Cal.  513—1717.  i 

Howser  v.   Cumberland,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

80  Md.   146—1479. 
Howze  V.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91 

Miss.  695—882,  900. 
Hoye  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  191  N. 

Y.    101—421,   423. 
Hoylman  v.  Kanawha  &  M.  Ry.  Co., 

65  W.  Va.  264—1682. 
Hoyt  V.  Chicago  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  93 

111.  601—246. 
Hoyt  V.   Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    112 

Mich.  638—1228. 
Hoyt  V.  Hudson,  41   Wis.   105 — 1545. 
Hrebrick  v.  Carr,  29  Fed.  298—1011. 
Huba  v.  Schenectady  Ry.  Co.,  85  App. 

Div,    (N.  Y.)— 199. 
Hubbard  v.  Harnden  Express  Co.,  10 

R.  I.  244—324,  458. 
Hubbard  v.  Mobile  &  0.  R.  Co.,   112 

Mo.  App.  459—952,   1356,   1365. 
Hubbard  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 

N.   Y.   455—999. 
Hubbard  v.  Town  of  Mason  City,  60 

Iowa,  400—1403. 
Hubbell  v.  Yonkers,  104  N.  Y.  434— 

549. 
Hubbersty   v.    Ward,    8    Exch.    330 — 

191,  214,  229. 
Hubener  v.  Heide,  62  App.  Div.    (N. 

Y.)   368—100. 
Huber  v.  Cedar  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

124  Iowa,  550— le.H. 
Iluckstep  V.  St.  Louis  &  H.  Ry.  Co., 

166  Mo.  App.  330—1465. 
Iluddleston  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

90   Ark.   378—1204,    1483. 
Hudson  V.  Baxendalc,  2  II.  &  N.  575 

— 40n,   401,   412. 


CXXVIU 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


(Tha   references   are   to   tlu-   pages.) 


Ihulson  V.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  3  Mc- 

Orary    (U.  S.)    24S>— 10'28. 
Huilaou    V.    Lyun    &    B.    R.    Co.,    178 

Mass.    64— 14()'2. 
Hudson  V.  Lvnn  &  Boston  R.  Co.,  183 

Mass.    010—91)2. 
ITuilson  V.  Lvnn,  etc..  R.  Co.  (Mass.), 

59  N.  E.  tJ47— 1428. 
Hudson   V.    Midland    R.   Co.,    10   B.   & 

S.  504,  30  L.  T.  R.  Q.  B.  213—1292, 
1293. 
Hudson  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.   Co.,  92 

Iowa.  231 — 4S3.  597. 
Hudson  V.   Richmond,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  2 

App.  Cas.    (D.  C),  98—958. 
Hudson  County  Water  Co.  v.  McCar- 

tcr,  209  U.  S.  349—1735. 
Hudson     River     Lighterage     Co.     v. 

Wheeler    Condenser    &    E.    Co.,    93 

Fed.  374—572. 
Huelsenkarap   v.   Citizens   R.   Co.,   37 

Mo.  537—1213. 
Huelsenkamp  v.   Citizen's  R.  Co..  34 

Mo.  45 — 1641. 
Huff  V.  Austin,  46  Ohio  St.  386—1507. 
Huffard  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

64  Mich.   631—1075,   1076,   1417. 
Hufford  V.  Railway  Co.,  53  Mich.  118 

—1415. 
Hughes  V.  Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.,   127 

Mo.  447—1204'. 
Hughes  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,   14 

C.  B.  637—343,  464. 
Hughes  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

IN.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  222—1181,   1425, 

1552. 
Hughes  V.   Pennsylvania  R.   Co.,  202 

Pa.  222—909. 
Hughes  V.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co., 

74  Fed.  499—65. 
Hughes  V.  Western  R.  Co.,  61  Ga.  131 

—1702. 
Hughson  V.  Richmond  &  D.  R.  Co.,  2 

App.  D.  C.  98—1020.  1046. 
Huguelet  v.   Warfield,  84  S.  C.  87— 

515. 
Hubert   V.    New   York    Cent.,   etc.,    R. 

Co.,  40  N.  Y.  145—1231,  1673. 
Hulchan   v.   Green   Bay,   etc.,   R.  Co., 

68    Wis.    .527—1544. 
Hull  V.  Boston  &  M.  R.  R.,  210  Mass. 

159—1177,   1412. 
Hull  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  41  Minn. 

510—570,  572,  576,  579,  905. 
Hull   v.    East   Line,    etc.,   R.    Co.,   66 

Tex.  619—1229. 


Hull  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  00  Mo. 

App.  593 — 400. 
Humboldt      Lumber      Manufacturers' 
Ass'n    V.    Christopherson,    73    Fed. 
239—1989. 
Humphrey    v.   Micliigan   United   Rys. 

Co.,   106  Mich.  645—1178. 
Humphreys  v.  Reed,  6  Whart.    (Pa.) 

435 — 53,    163,   050. 
Humplirevs  v.  Perry,  148  U.  S.  627— 

44,   1294,   12!)9,   1301,   1330,   1331. 
Humpliries  v.  lllitiois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  70 

Miss.  453—1229,   1255. 
Hungerford  v.  Winnebago  Tug  Boat, 

etc.,  Co.,  33  Wis.  303—258. 
Hunt  y.  Haskell,  24  Me.  339—649. 
Hunt  y.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co.,  126 

Mo.  App.  79—1490. 
Hunt  y.  Mississippi   Cent.  R.  Co.,  29 

La.  Ann.   446—229. 
Hunt  y.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  74  S.  W.  69—319. 
Hunt  y.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.   Co.    (Tex. 

Ciy.   App.),   31   S.   W.   523—694. 
Hunt  v.  Morris,  12  N.  J.  L.  175—570. 
Hunt   v.   New   York,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    1 

Hilt.    (N.  Y.)    228—738,  748. 
Hunt  y.  New  York,  N.  H.  &  H.  R.  Co., 

212   Mass.    102—979. 
Hunt  y.   Nutt    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),   27 

S.   W.    1031—151,   742. 
Hunter  y.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

72   S.   C.   336—1064. 
Hunter  y.  Borst,  13  U.  C,  Q.  B.  141— 

345. 
Hunter  v.  Charleston  &  W.  C.  Ry.  Co., 

81  S.  C.  169—1980. 
Hunter  y.   Cooperstown,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

126  N.  Y.  23—1613. 
Hunter  y.  Cooperstown,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

112  N.  Y.  371—1244,  1577. 
Hunter  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

85  Fed.  379—548. 
Hunter  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  150 

Ala.  594—1669. 
Hunter  v.  Potts,  4  Campb.  203—33. 
Hunter  y.   Southern   Pac.   R.   Co.,   76 

Tex.  195—741,  757,  708. 
Hunter  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.   F.  R.  Co., 

167  Mo.   App.   624 — 722,    1835. 
Hunterson   v.   Union   Tract.   Co.,   205 

Pa.  568—1610,    1015,   1020. 
Hunting    Elevator    Co.    v.    Bosworth, 

179  U.  S.  41,5-123. 
Huntington  v.  Dinsmore,  4  Hun    (N, 
Y.)   00—430. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


CXXL2C 


Huntley  v.  Dows,   55   Barb.    (X.  Y.) 

310—627,  693. 
Hurd    V.    Hartford,    etc..    Steamboat 

Co.,    40    Conn.    48—198,    413,    655, 

663. 
Hurlburt  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

2  Int.   Com.   Rep.   81—1781. 
Hurley  v.  Metropolitan   St.   Rv.   Co., 

120'  Mo.    App.    262— 16G9,    1687. 
Hurst   V.   Great   Western   R.   Co.,    19 

C.  B.  N.  S.  310—1259. 
Hurt  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  145  Ky. 

475 — 1621. 
Hurt  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  40  Miss.  391 

—987,  990,  991,  998. 
Hurt  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Mo. 

255—1246. 
Hurwitz      V.       Hamburg      American 

Packet  Co.,  27  Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.) 

S14 — 1292. 
Huschberg  v.  Dinsmore,  12  Daly   (N. 

Y.)   429—478. 
Hussey  v.  Saragossa,  3  Woods  (U.S.) 

380—906. 
Huston  V.  Peters,  1  Mete.   (Ky.)   558 

—258,  488,  5S6. 
Huston  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  63  Mo.  App. 

671—144. 
Hutcheson  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

108  Ky.  615 — 160. 
Hutcheson  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co., 

22  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1871—160. 
Hutchings   v,   Ladd,    16   Mich.    493— 

262. 
Hutchings  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25 

Ga.  61—1291,  1295,  1296. 
Hutchins  v.  Brackett,  22  N.  H.  252— 

85. 
Hutchins  v.  Pennsylvania,   181  N.  Y. 

186—1366. 
Hutchins  v.  Western  &  A.  R.  Co.,  25 

Ga.  61—1344. 
Hutchinson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

Minn.  524—36,  456,  560,   851,  927. 
Hutchinson  v.  United  States  Express 

Co.,  63  W.  Va.  128—253,  254,  255, 

400. 
Hutchinson   v.   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   6 

Eng.  Ry.  &  C.  Cas.  580—1063. 
HutkofT    V.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    29 

Misc.  R.   (N.  Y.)   770—402.  572. 
Ilutto  V.   Southern    R.   Co.,   75   S.   C. 

29.5—1343. 
Hutton  V.  Osborne,   1   Sel.  N.  P.  420 


Hyde   v.    New   York,   etc..    Steamship 

Co.,  17  La.  Ann.  29—524. 
Hyde  v.  Trent.  Nav.  Co.,  5  T.  R.  68 — 

53,  251,  257. 
Hyman  v.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.,  66 

Hun   (N.  Y.),  202—1345,  1363. 
Hyman  v.  Nye,   6   Q.   B.   Div.   685 — 

1129. 
Hynds  v.  Wynn,  71  Iowa,  593 — 370. 


I. 

Ickenroth   v.   St.   Louis   Tr.   Co.,    102 

Mo.  App.  597—1433. 
I.  C.  Levy's  Son  &  Co.  v.  Gibson  Line 

of  Steamers,  130  Ga.  581—1994. 
Idaho  Gold  Reduction  Co.  v.  Croghan 

(Id.),  56  Pac.  164—85. 
Igo  V.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  156  IIU 

App.   190— S62. 
Ihl  V.  Forty  Second  St.,  etc.,  R.  (>)., 

47  N.  Y.  317—1587. 
Ilges   V.    St.    Louis    Transit   Co.,    102 

Mo.  App.  529—1220. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.   Co.  v.  Able,  59  111. 

131—1676. 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.   Adams,    42 

111.  474—806,  819,  823,  1460. 
Ilinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Alexander,  20 

111.  23-380,  413,  662,  664. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  28  Ky. 

Law  Rep.  108 — 1141,  1272. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson,  184 

111.  294—1460,  1467. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Ashmead,  58 

111.  487—84,   325,   376. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Axley,  47  111, 

App.  307—1264. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Beebe,  174  111 

13—1036. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Beebe,  69  111 

App.  36.3—951,  1475. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Brelsford,   13 

111.  App.  251-821. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Black,  122  HI 

App.  439—1514. 
niinois    Cent.    R.    Co.   v.   Bogard,   78 

Miss.  11 — 456,  902. 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.   Brookhaven 

Mach.  Co.,  71  Miss.  663—612. 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    Brown     77 

Miss.  .-^38— 1627. 
Illinoi.s  Cent.  R.  Co.  V.  Bundy,  97  JH 

App.  202—793. 


C-\\.\ 


TAIU.K  t)F  CASES. 


(Tlie   rrfcrpiioi's   are   to   the   pages.) 


Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cartoi,  IC.)  111. 

:)7l)— ;iJ»l>,  743.  7(i9. 
Illinois  Cent.  K.  Co.  v.  Clitik,  Ij-i  Ind. 

(>t)3— 124J.   I(i08. 
Illinois  lent.   R.  Co.  v.   Cobb,  72   111. 

14S— r>8y.  5117,  601,  604. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb,  64  111. 

I2S— 130,    1.S5,    138,    251),   345,   364, 

616.  617,  624. 
Illinois   Cent.   K.   Co.  v.   Cobb,  48   J II. 

402—330,  331,  332. 
Illinois  Cent.  K.  Co.  v.   Copeland,  24 

111.  332—74.!.  1295,  1296,  1361. 
Illinois  Cent.  K.  Co.  v.  Colter,  31  Kv. 

Law  Rep.  675) — 986,  1279. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cowles,  32  111. 

117—743. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cruse,  29  Ky. 

Law  Rop.  914-1271. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cunningham, 

67   111.  316—1394,   1724. 
Illinois  Cent.   R.  Co.  v.  Cunningham, 

102  111.  App.  206—1676. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Curry,  32  Ky. 

Law  Rep.  513—863,  912.  ' 
Illi-ois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Dallas  Admx., 

150   Ky.   442—957,   1669. 
Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.    v.   Daniels,    96 

Miss.  314 — 1604. 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    Davenport, 

177  in.  110—1057,  1426. 
Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co.  v.  Davidson,  76 

Fed.   517—1215. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Dick,  91  Ky. 

434—998. 
Ilinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Eblen,  24  Kv. 

L.  Rep.   1009—815. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Fleming.   148 

Ky.  473-1884. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Foley,  53  Fed. 

4.50—1036. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Frankensburg, 

,54  111.  88—131,  425,  427,  433,  743, 

758.  766. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Friend.  04  111. 

.30.3—198,  255,  380. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Goodrich,  163 

111.  App.  208-6.54. 
Illinois  Cent.   R.  Co.  v.  Gortikov,  90 

Miss.  787—1417. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Green.  81   111. 

19—1672. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Gross   (Miss.), 

22  So.  946—288. 


Illinois    Cent.    R.   Co.  t.   Gunterman,. 

1.35  Ky.  438—1173,   1206. 
Illinois   lent.  R.   Co.   v.  Hall,  58   111. 

App.  409—584,  804. 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    Handy,    63 

Miss.  609—64,  66,  1296. 
Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.     v.     Harper 

(Miss.),  35  So.  764—1417. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.   v.   Harris,    184 

111.  57—797. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Harris  (Miss.) , 

32  So.  309—1027. 
Illinois   Cent.    R.   Co.    v.   Ilaynes,    64 

Miss.   604—343,  344,  589,  624,  838. 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.   v.    Haynes,   63 

Miss.  485—794. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Henderson  Ele- 
vator Co.,  226  U.  S.  441—1836. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Henderson  Ele- 
vator Co..  138  Ky.  220—1837. 
niinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hobbs,  58  111. 

App.  130—1476,  1477. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Holt,  29  Ky. 

Law  Rep.   135—597,  790,  791,  840. 
Illinois   Cent.  R.   Co.  v.  Hopkinsville 

Canning  Co.,  132  Ky.  578—597,  621, 

622. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hornberger,  77 

111.  457—84,  130.  37G. 
Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co.   v.  Illinois,   163 

U.  S.  142—1230. 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.     v.     Interstate 

Commerce    Commission,   206   U.    S. 

441—1846. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.   v.   Jackson,   25 

Ky.  L.  R.  2087—1417. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Jennings,  229 

111.  608—1527,  1579. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Jennings,  217 

111.  140—1037,  1043. 
Illinois    Cent.   R.   Co.   v.   Johnson,   07 

in.   312—114.5,   1394,    1424,   1724. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.    Co.   v.  .Johnson,   34 

111.  389—743,  757. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,   123 

111.  App.  300—1675. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,   116 

Tenn.  624—608,  622. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Jolly,  25  Ky. 

L.  R.  173.5—1633. 
Ilinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Jonte,   13  111. 

App.  424—431,  463,  743,   1460. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.   v.   Keegan,  210 

[II.    l.")0— 1232. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CXTtXI 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Kerr,  68  :Miss. 

14—740,  758. 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    Kuhn,    107 

Tenn.   106 — 1080.   1082. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.  v.   Laloge,    113 

Ky.  896—976. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Lancashire  Ins. 

Co.    (Miss.),  30  So.  43—440. 
Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co.  v.  Langdon,   71 

Miss.  146—584. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Latimer,   128 

111.    App.     163—1428,     1429,     1439, 

1719. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.   Co.  v.  Louthan,   SO 

111.  App.  579—1413. 
Illinois   Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Lutz,  84  111. 

598—1676. 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.   Massey,   97 

Miss.  794—1669. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Matthews,  114 

Ky.  973—1377. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  McClellan.  54 

111.   58—26,    33,   84,    138,   345,   364, 

376,  521,  550,  555,  617. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  McMillian,  129 

111.  App.  27,  37—1000,  1059. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Meacham,  91 

Tenn.  428—1041. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  32  111. 

App.  259—215,  757,  766. 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    Minor,    69 

Miss.   710—1167,   1187. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.  v.  Mitchell,   68 

111.   417—379,   775. 
Illinois  Cent.   R.  Co.  v.  Morrison.   19 

III.   136—452,   822,   847,   878,   1454, 

1456,  1460. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.   v.   Mossbarger, 

28  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1217-597,  620. 
Ilinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Nelson,  59  111. 

110—1145,   1204,   1423.   1702. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Nelson,  30  Ky. 

Law  Rep.   114—621. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Nowicki,   148 

111.  29—1518. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.   Co.  v.  O'Keefo,   108 

111.  115—946. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.   v.   O'Kec-fe,   63 

111.  App.  102—1033. 
Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.     v.     Pearson 

(Mis?.)   31  So.  435—1721. 
Illinois   Cent.    R.   Co.   v.    People.    143 

111.   434—1230. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  People,  19  ill. 

.\pp.  Ml— 148. 


niicois   Cent.  R.   Co.  v.  Peterson,  68 

Miss.  454—819,  820,  873. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Phelps,  4  111. 

App.  238—130,  138. 
Illinois    Cent.   R.    Co.   v.   Phillips,   49 

111.  234—1119. 
Illinois    Cent.   R.   Co.   v.   Proctor,   28 

Ky.  Law  Rep.  598—980. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.   v.   Radford,  23 

Ky.  Law  Rep.  886—882,  886,  890. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Read,  37  111. 

484—1450,  1463,  1465. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  River  &  Rail 

Coal  &   C.   Co.,   150   Ky.   489—139, 

302. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.  Co.  v.  Roberts,   148 

Ky.  478—1884. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Robinson,  58 

111.  App.  181—1716,  1717. 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.   v.    Rothschild, 

134  111.  App.  504—1039,   1480. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Sauper,  38  111. 

354 — 455. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.   Schwartz,   13 

111.  App.  490—130,  429.  530. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.   v.   Scruggs,   69 

Miss.  418—456,  469,  822. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Seitz,  214  111. 

350—659,  711. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Seitz.  105  111. 

App.  89—659. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.  v.   Sheehan,   29 

111.  App.  90—1171,   1403. 
Illinois   Cent.  R.   Co.  v.   Simmons,   49 

111.  App.  433—350,  606. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.  v.   Simpson,    17 

111.  App.  325—206. 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.   v.    Slatton,    54 

111.  135—1676. 
Illinois   Cent.  R.  Co.  v.   Smiesni.    104 

111.  App.  194—1122. 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    Smith.    85 

Miss.  .349—1141. 
Ilinoi>    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    Smvser.    38 

111.  3.54—175,  182,  18.5,  188,  463. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Southern  Bank, 

etc.,  41  111.  App.  287—216,  226. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Southern  Seat- 
ing, etc.,  Co.,   104  Tenn.   568—600. 
lUiniiis   Cent.   R.   Co.   v.   S.   Segari   & 

Co.,   205   Fed.   008—1881. 
Illinoi.=?    Cent.   R.    Co.   v.    Stewart,   23 

Ky.  L.   Rep.  637—549,   1460. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.    Co.   v.    Strauss,    75 

Miss.   367—1689. 


CXXXll 


TARLE  OF  CASES. 


(Tbo  referencca  are  to  the  pages.)' 


Illinoia    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    Sutton,    42 

111.  43S— 14l!9,  ir)59. 
llliunis   (.out.   1\.   Co.  V,   Swanson,   92 

Miss.  4So — r)l4. 
Illinois  Cent.  K.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  46  111. 

A  pp.   141  —  1237. 
Illinois  Cent.  11.  Co.  v.  Team  (Miss.), 

20  8o.   TOO— }H)IJ. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Treat,  179  III. 

57()— 9S5. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Troustine,  64 

Miss.  S:!4— S;5.  1306,  1348. 
Illinois    Cent.    K.    Co.   v.    Vinson,    25 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  38-1221. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.   Co.  v,  Warren,   149 

Fed.  658 — 1636. 
Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.   v.   Waters,    41 

111.  73—343,  585,  607,  838. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.  Co.  v.   Watklns,  28 

Ky.   Law  Rep.    1254 — 597. 
Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.  v.   Whitteraore, 

43  III.  420—1068,  1390.  1429. 
Illinois,    ftc.    Co.    v.    Beaird,   24    111. 

App.  322—717. 
Illinois  Match  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.,  153  111.  App.  568—476. 
Illinois  Southern   R.  Co.  v.  Hubbard, 

106  III.  App.  462—1212. 
Ihvaco  R..   etc.,  Co.   v.  Oresron   Short 

L.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Fed.  673—1800. 
Imhoff    V.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    22 

Wis.   681—1231. 
Imhoff   V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.     20 

Wis.  344—998,    1225.   1237,   1238. 
Imperial  Coal  Co.  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  Rep.  436—1790, 

1796. 

Independence  Mills  Co.  v.  Burlington, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    72    Iowa,    535—381, 

394,  395,  779. 
Independant  Refiners'  Assoc,  v.  West- 
ern New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Int. 

Com.  Rep.  162—1785,  1790,  1850. 
Indianna  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hudelson,  13 

Ind.  325 — 989,  1018. 
Indiana   Cent.   R.   Co.   v.   Mundy,   21 

Ind    48—1450,   1460. 
Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Go.  v.  Ditto,  158  Ind. 

669-1426,  1437. 
Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Doremyer,  20 

Ind.  App.  60.5 — 328,  329. 
Indiana,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Green,    106 

Tnd.   279—1543. 
Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  James,  18  111. 

App.  65.5 — 904. 


Indii'na,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Zilly,  20  Ini 

App.  569-359,   1357. 
Indianapolis    v.    Rutherford,    29    lud. 

82—1106,    1506,    1642,    1655. 
lnilianaj)oli8    Abattoir    Co.    v.    Neid- 

linger,  174  Ind.  400—1067. 
Indianapolis  &  G.  R.  T.  Co.  v.  Andis, 

33  Ind.  App.  625—1062. 
Indianapolis  &  G.  R.  T.  Co.  v.  Derry 

(Jnd.    App.),   71    N.   E.   912—1249. 
Indianapolis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  Adaju-s, 

36   111.   App.   629—897. 
Indianopolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  31 

Ind.  394—455,  896,  927. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anthony, 

43  Ind.   183—1148. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Beaver, 

41  Ind.  49.3—497,  1037,  1038,  1145. 
Indianapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Birnoy, 

71  III.  391—1227,  1704,  1707,  1708. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Cox,  29 

Ind.  360—427,  1330. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  32 

111.  App.  67—680. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Forsythe, 

4  Ind.  App.  326—289,  455,  576. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  106 

111.  371—1270. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Herndon, 

81   111.   143—279,  679. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Herring, 

93  U.  S.  298—1.543. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Horst,  93 

U,  S.  291—49,   1036,   1211,   1264. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jiincrten, 

10  111.  App.  295—326,  333,  369. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Juroy,  8 

III.  App.  160—33,  433. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kennedy, 

77  Ind.  507—1423. 
Indian;! polis,  et<;.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murray, 

72  111.  128—752. 
Indianapolis,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Pitzer, 

109    Ind.    179—1248,    1258,    1591. 
Indianapolis,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Remmy, 

13  Ind.  518—1460. 
Indiiinapolis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Rinard, 

46  Ind.  29.3—1135,   1390,   1394. 
Indianapolis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    Strain, 

81  111.  540—584,  793. 
Indianapolis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Vanduzen, 

81   111.   143—234. 
liidiannpolis,    etc..    Rap.    Trans.    Co., 

Wash.  45  Ind.  App.  42-1668. 
Indiana  Rv.  Co.  v.  Maurer   (Ind.),  66 

N.   E.    156—1581. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


cxxxni 


Indiana  Ry.  Ck>.  v.  Orr,  41  Ind.  App. 

426—1416. 
Indianapolis     Southern     R.     Co.     v. 

Tucker,  98  N.  E.  431—955. 
Indianapolis  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Wall 
(Ind.  App.),    101   N.   E.   680—976. 
Indianapolis  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Brown,  32 

Ind.   App.    130—1212. 
Indianapolis   St.   Rv.   Co.   v.   Darnell, 

1  St.  Ry.  Rep.  23*7—549. 
Indianapolis  St.  Ry.  Co.  Dawson,  31 

Ind.  App.  605—1191. 
Indianapolis    St.   R.    Co.    v.    Hockett, 
161    Ind.     196—1019,     1392,     1425, 
1441,   1447. 
Indianapolis  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Robinson, 
157  Ind.  414,  61  N.  E.  936—1081, 
1545. 
Indianapolis   St.   Ry.   Co.   v.   Schmidt 
(Ind.),   71   X.   E.  201-1098.   1475. 
Indianapolis    St.    Ry.    Co.    v.    Tavlor 

find.),  72  N.  E.   1045—1565. 
Indianapolis  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Tenner.  32 

Ind.  App.  311—997,  1002,   1692. 
Indianapolis    St.    Ry.    Co.    v.    Wilson 

(Ind.),  66  N.  E.  950 — 1416. 
Indianapolis    Traction    &    T.    Co.    v. 

Lawson,   143   Fed.  834—1032. 

Indianapolis    Traction     &    T.    Co.    v. 

Klentschy,  167  Ind.  598—995,  1032. 

Indianapolis     Traction     et<;.,     Co.     v. 

Beckraan,  40  Ind.  App.   100 — 1630. 

Indianapolis     Traction,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Lockman  (Ind.  App.),  96  N.  E.  970 

—1390,   1408.  1437. 

Indianapolis    Traction,     etc.,    Co.    v. 

Romans,    40   Ind.   App.    184 — 1065. 

Indianapolis  Union  R.  Co.  v.  Cooper, 

6  Ind.  App.  202-1150. 
Indiana   Union    Tract.    Co.    v.    Bena- 

dum,  42  Ind.  App.  121—801. 
Indiana  Union  Traction  Co.  v.  Keiter, 

175  Ind.  268—1540. 

Indiana  Union  Traction  Co.  v.  Lang- 

l«'y    find.),  98  X.   E.   728—1065. 
Indiana  Union  Traction  Co.  v.  Maher, 

176  Ind.  289-1495. 

Indiana  Unitfd  Traction  Co.  v.  Scrib- 

ner.  47  Ind.  App.  621  —  1117. 
Inpiills  V.  Bills.  9   Mote,    (^fa>;s.)    1 — 

lOSO,    1118,    1129,    1214,    1582. 
Innjalls   V.    Brooks,    1    Edm.    Sel.    Cas. 

(X.  Y.)   104—638. 
Innate  v.  Christie,  3  C.  &  K.  61—23. 

73,  77. 


Ingersoll  v.  Van  Bokkelin,  7  Cow.  (X. 

Y.)   670—531. 
Ingledew  v.  Xorthem  R.  Co.,  7  Gray 

(Mass.),    86—569,   597,   606. 
Ingraur  v.  American  Forwarding  Co., 

162  111,  App.  476—82. 
Ingram  v.   Weir,    166   Fed.   328 — 477, 

480. 
Ingwersen  v.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.  Co., 

116  Mo.  App.  139 — 902,  924. 
Inland  &  S.   Coasting   Co.  v.   Tolson, 

139  U.  S.  551—1265. 
Inman  v.   Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7   U. 

C.  C.  P.  325—386. 
Inman  v    Seaboard  Air  Line  Ry.  Co., 

159  Fed.  960—442. 
Inman  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  129 

U.   S.    128—451,   454,   547. 
Inman  v.  St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.,  14 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  39—715. 
Inman  v.  St.   Louis  Southern  R.  Co. 
(Tex.    Civ.   App.),   37    S.   W.   37— 
735. 
Inman  &  Co.  v.  Seaboard  Air  Line  Ry. 
Co.    (C.   C,   Ga.),    159   Fed.   960— 
116,  475,  509. 
In  re  Benson,  18  S.  C.  38—668. 
In  re  California  Xav.  &  Imp.  Co.,  110 

Fed.  678—2002,  2037. 
In  re  Charge  to  Grand  Jurv,  151  Fed 

834—1732,   1738. 
In  re  Charge  to  Grand  Jury,  66  Fe4. 

146—1792. 
In  re  Debs,  158  U.  S.  564 — 1745. 
In    re    Emerson    Mar  low    &    Co.     199 
Fed.  95-82. 

In  re  Grand  Jury,  62  Fed.  840—1733. 

In  re  Green,  52  Fed.  194 — 1892. 

In    re   Huntington    (D.    C),    68    Fed 

881—1967. 
In  re  Lakeland  Transp    Co.,  103  Fed 

328—2015. 
In  re  Meyer,   74   Fed.  881 — 1989. 
In  re  Minneapolis  &  St.  P.  Suburban 

Ry.  Co.,   101   Minn.   132—24. 
In   re  Missouri   Steamship   Co.,   L    R 

42    Ch.    Div.    321—307,    451. 
In  re  Palliser,  136  U.  S.  257 — 1944. 
In  re  PiprT  Aden  Goodall  Co.,  86  Fed 

670—1995. 
In    re   Pooling  of   Freights,    llf)    Fed 

,588—1848,  1949. 
In    re    State    Fieight    Tax,    82    U    S 

(15  Wall.)    232-1857. 
Insurance    Co.   of   Xorth   America    v. 


CXXMV 


TABLE  OF  CASEtJ. 
(The   roferciicee  arc   to   the   pages.) 


D.liiwiir,'  l^lut.   Paf.tv    Ins.   Co.,  91 

'ri'iiii.  fi.sT — ifjij. 

lii.-maiui'  (.'<).  ol  North  AiiuMica  T. 
Kaston,  73  Tox.    1(57—547. 

Insuraiu'c  Co.  of  North  America  v. 
Lake  Erie,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  152  liul.  3:53 
—340,   578. 

Insuraiioe  Co.  of  North  America  v. 
N\  rth  (lorinan  Liovd  Co.,  lOtJ  Foil. 
973—19^7,   2018,  2024. 

In>u ranee  Co.  of  North  America  v. 
yt.  Ix)iiis.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Fed.  380 
—551. 

International  &  G.  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Bing- 
ham (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  89  S.  W. 
1113—297. 

International  &  C  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Davis, 
17  Tex.   Civ.  App.  340—1050. 

International  &  G.  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Dun- 
can (Tox.  Civ.  App.),  121  S.  W. 
3r.2— 1004,   1275. 

International  &  G.  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Gil- 
mer,  18  Tex.  Civ.  App.  680—1257. 

International  &  G.  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Han- 
na  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  58  S.  W.  548 
—1042. 

International  &  G.  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Heitt- 
ner  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  94  S.  W.  189 
—885,  903. 

International  &  G.  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Hood 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  118  S.  W.  1119— 
1431. 

International  &  G.  N.  R.  Co.  v.  H.  P. 
Drought  &  Co.  (Tex.  Civ  App.), 
100  S.  W.   1011—561. 

International  &  G.  N.  R.  Co.  v. 
Hugen  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  100  S.  W. 
10!"0— 1154,   1278. 

International  &  G.  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
CuUough  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  118  S. 
W.  558—800.  802.  855. 

International  Coal  Mine  Co.  v.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.,  162  F.'d.  996— 
720. 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Aneh- 
onda  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  68  S.  W. 
74.3—1709. 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ander- 
son, 3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  8—137,  138, 
516,  599,  742,  768,  780. 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  An- 
thony.  24  Tex.   Civ.  App.  9—1100. 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Aten 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  81  S.  W.  346— 
742. 


liiterMiitional,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Berg- 
man    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    64    S.    W. 
•".•!l— 314,  318. 
lnt<>rnational,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brazzil, 
78  Tex.  314—1716,   1724,  1729. 
etc.,   R.   Co. 
Civ.    App, 


v.   Camp- 
509—768, 


International, 

bell,    1    Tex 

1037,   1451. 
Intcniiitional,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Cock, 

68  Tex.  713-1044. 
lnt^^rnatiollal,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Cope- 
land,  60  Tex.  325—1634. 
International,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Davia, 

17   Tex.  Civ.  App.  340—1111. 
International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Dim- 
mit   County    Pasture    Co.,    5    Tex. 

Civ.  App.   186—189. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Earnest 

&  Bost   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  77  S.  W. 

29—852,  908,  924. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Folliard, 

60  Tex.  603—1349,  1672. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Foltz,  3 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  44—1360. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Garrett, 

5  Tex.  Civ.  App.   540—482. 
International,   etc.,   R.   Co    v.   Giesen 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),   69   S.  W.  653— 

1713. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gilbert, 

64  Tex.  536—988,  1258,  1712. 
International,    etc.,    R.    Co    v.    Gold- 
stein, 2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Cas.   §  274 

—1068. 
Tnteraational.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gray,  65 

Tex.   32—991,   1044,   1267. 
International,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hallonn, 

53  Tex.  46—1083,  1115,  1117,  1123, 

1131,  1214. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harder 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  81   S.  W.  356— 

1701. 
International,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hassell, 

62  Tex.  256—1410,  1582. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Heittner 

Tox.    Civ.   App.),   94    S.   W.    189— 

924. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ilyne.*,  3 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  20—138,  359,  838. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ing  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  68  S.  W.  722—1028. 
International,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Irvine, 

64   Tex.  529—1058.   1714. 
International,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    .Tones 

(Tex.   Civ.  Ajip.),   91    S.   W.   611— 

939. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references   are   to   the   pages.) 


cxxxv 


International,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Kentle, 

2  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  .303—1716, 

1150. 
International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Lane 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  127  S.  W.  1066— 

1160. 
International,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Lewis 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  23   S.   W.  323— 

137,  83S. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mahula, 

1  Tex.   Civ.  App.   182— 76S,   771. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McRae, 

82  Tex.  614—798,  819. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCoun, 

2  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  712—1295. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCrary 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  131  S.  W.  11G2— 

855. 
International,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Miller, 

9   Tex.  Civ.  App.   104—1187,   1190. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moody, 

71    Tex.   589—614,  449,   485. 
International,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Nichol- 
son, 61  Tex.  5.50—590,  613. 
International,    etc.,    R.    Co.     v.     No- 

waski    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  106  S.  W. 

437—822. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Philips, 

63  Tex.  590—590. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pool,  24 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  575—795,  857. 
International,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Prince, 

77  Tex.  560—1044. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ritchie 

(Tex.   Civ.   App.),  26  S.  W.  840— 

119,  342,  344. 
International,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Satter- 

white,  15  Tex.  Civ.  App.  102—1676. 
International,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Server, 

3  Tex.  App.  Civ.   Cas.  §  440—345, 
369,  370. 

International,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Shuford 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  81  S.  W.  1189— 

1214. 
International,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Smith 

(Tex.),    14   S.   W.   642—1244. 
International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Smith 

(Tex.),  44  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Co.,  324 
—1560. 
International,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Smith, 

1   Tex.  App.  Civ.   Cas.   §   844—906. 
International,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Startz, 

97  Tex.  167—908. 
International,   ertc.,   R.    Co.  v.   Startz 


(Tex.   Civ.  App.),   33   S.  W.  575— 

610,  618. 
International,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Terry, 

62  Tex.  380—1257,  1709,  1710. 
International,   etc.,  R.   Co.   v.  Thorn- 
ton, 3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  197—768. 
Internatdonal,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Tisdale 

74  Tex.  8—327,  369,  746,  779. 
International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    True 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  57  S.  W.  977— 

541. 
International,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Under- 

wcod,  62  Tex.  21—479,  483,  517. 
International,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Wash- 

inorton   (Tex.  Civ,  App.),  117  S.  W. 

992—1171. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watt,  2 

Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  781 — 431,  432. 
International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Wel- 

bcurne  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  115  S.  W. 

111—1924. 
International,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Welsh 

86  Tex.  203—1214.  ' 

International,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Went- 

worth,  87  Tex.  311—351,  757. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkes 

68   Tex.  617—1393. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wolf,  3 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  383—778. 
International,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Young 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  72  S.  W.  68—830. 

834,  858,  924. 
International,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Young 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  28   S.  W.  819— 

135. 
International    Nav.    Co.    v.    Farr    & 

Bailey   Mfg.   Co.,   181   U.   S.   218— 

1997. 

International  Ry.  Co.  v.  Central  Ice 
Co.,  121  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  77— 
666. 

International  Text-Book  Co.  v.  Lynch 
81   Vt.   101—1732,   1733. 

International  Text- Book  Co.  v.  Pitrrr 
217  U.  S.  91—1736. 

International  Watch  Co.  v.  Delaware 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  N.  J.  L.  553—1907.' 

Interstate  Commorco  Com.  v.  Alalm'-i 
M.  R.  Co.,  168  U.  S.  144—1783 
178.5,  1787,  1788,  1791,  1792,  1796* 
1797,   1800,   1828,    1830. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Ala- 
bama M.  R.  Co.,  74  Fed.  175— 17S1 
1795. 


t'XXW  1 


TABl.E  OF  CASES. 


(The   refeii'iK't's   an"   to   llic    juiges.) 


Iiitorstule  t  onimorce  Coin.  v.  A'a- 
l)iima  M.  K.  Co.,  ft!)  Fod.  227 — 17()0. 

Interstate  Coniinerce  Coin.  v.  Atflii- 
son   U.  Co.,  r.O   Fed.  2!!;")— 182!). 

Intfistiito  Comincrco  Com.  v.  ]iaird, 
15>4  V.  S.  25—1734. 

Interstate  Coininerce  Com.  v.  Balti- 
more &  O.  K.  Co..  22;")  U.  S.  32() — 
1812. 

Interstate  Coinnx-rce  Com.  v.  Balti- 
more, etc..  R.  Co.,  145  U.  S.  2(5:? — 
1751),  1771,  1772,  1785,  1790,  1702, 
17!M,  17J»C,  1797,  1800,  1822.  1829, 
1854. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Fed.  37—1771, 
179(1.  1832. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Brim- 
son.     154    U.    S.    447—1736,     1742, 

1759,  1776,  1780,  1784,  1793,  1823, 
1828,    1852. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Chesa- 
peake &  O.  R.  Co.,  200  U.  S.  361— 
1798.  1865. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Chesa- 
peake &  O.  Ry.  Co.,  128  Fed.  59— 
1786,  1798. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Chicago, 
etc..   R.   Co.,  94   Fed.   272—1760. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  218  U.  S.  88—1803. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Chicago 
G.  W.  Rv.  Co.,  209  U.  S.  108—1802, 
1806,    1841,    1845. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Chicago 
G.  VV.  Ry.  Co.,  141  Fed.  1003— 
1771,   1801. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Cincin- 
nati, etc.,  R.  Co.,  167  U.  S.  479— 
510,  1759.  1771,  1780,  1782,  1828. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Cincin- 
nati, etc.,  R.  Co.,  146  Fed.  5.59— 
1804,    1842. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Cincin- 
nati, etc.,  R.  Co.,  124  Fed.  624— 
1795. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Cincin- 
nati,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    76    Fed.    183— 

1760,  1771,   1773. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Cincin- 
nati,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    56    Fed.    925— 

1761,  1775,    1799. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Clyde 
S.  S.  Co.,  181  U.  S.  29—1830. 


Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Dela- 
ware, etc.,  R.  Co.,  220  U.  S.  235 — 
1810. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Dela- 
ware, cte.,  R.  Co.,  216  U.  S.  536— 
1S()8. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  DifTeii 
baugh,  222  U.  S.  42—1809. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  East 
Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Fed.  107 
1759.   1761,   1783,   1787,   1799,   182H. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  215  U.  S.  452—1821, 
1855. 

Interstate  Commerce  Cora.  v.  Lehigh 
Valley  R.  Co.,  74  Fed.  784—1783. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Lehigh 
Valley   R.   Co.,   69   Fed.  227—1760. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Louis- 
ville &  N.  R.  Co.,  190  U.  S.  273— 
1830. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Louis- 
ville &  N.  R.  Co.,  118  Fed.  613— 
1784,  1877. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Louis- 
ville  &   N.   R.   Co.,   73   Fed.   409— 

1759,  1783,  1787,   1796,  1797,  1841, 
1876. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Nash- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  Fed.  934— 
1783,  1830. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  North- 
eastern R.  Co.,  83  Fed.  611—1760. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  North - 
em  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  216  U.  S.  538— 
1859. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Reich - 
mann,  145  Fed.  235—1948. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Soutli- 
ern  Pac.  Co.,  132  Fed.  829—1849, 
1876. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  South- 
ern R.  Co.,  122  Fed.  800—1829, 
1830,  1877. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  South- 
ern R.   Co.,   105   Fed.   703—1782. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Stick- 
ney,  215  U.  S.  98—1838,  1845. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Fed.  187—1784, 
1786,  1788,   1790,   1795. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  West- 
ern, etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  Fed.  83—1702, 

1760,  1785.   1798.   1799,   1825. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references   are  to  the   pages.) 


cxxxvn 


Interstate   Commerce    Com.   v.    West- 
ern,   etc..    R.    Co.,    88    Fed.    186 — 

1783,  1785,  1799,  1829,  1830. 
Interstate  Stock-Yards  Co.  v.  Indian- 
apolis   U.    R.    Co.,    99    Fed.    472— 

481,  1867,  1869. 
Interurban  Rv-.  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hancock, 

75  Ohio  St.'  88—1658. 
Investment  Co.  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

41  Fed.  378—778. 
lonnone  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 

R.  I.  452—1063. 
Irish  V.   Milwaukee,   etc..   R.   Co.,    19 

Minn.  376—730,  740,  774,  775,  776. 
Irish  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  4  Wash. 

48—1608. 
Iron  R.   Co.  v.  Mowery,   36  Ohio   St. 

418—945,  1479,  1494,  1582. 
Irvine  v.  Delaware,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   184 

Fed.  664—1537. 
Irvine  v.  Midland  Great  Western  R. 

Co.,  L.  R.  6  Ir.  55—611,  616. 
Irwin  V.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  161 

Ala.   489—1110,    1205. 
Irwin   v.    Nashville,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    92 

III.    103—780,   781. 
Irwin  V.  New  Y'ork  Cent.  R.  Co.,  59 

N.  Y.  653—738. 
Irwin   v.   New  York   Cent.   R.   Co.,    1 

T.  &  C.   (N.  Y.)  473—780. 
Isaacs  V.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  47  N.  Y. 

122—1155. 
Isaacson   v.  New  York  Cent.   R.   Co., 

94  N.  Y.  278—447,  538,  1302,  1.306, 

1.344,   1345,  1361,  1362. 
Isbell  V.   New  York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   27 

Conn.  393—1258. 
Isham  V.  Greenham,  1  Handy  (Ohio), 

357—651,  675.  676. 
l8herwof)d  v.  Whitmore,  11  AL  &  W. 

347—266. 
Ives  V.  Smith,  55  Hun  (N.  Y.),  606— 

1849. 


J. 

Jacobs  V.  Central  R.  Co.  of  N.  .J.,  208 

Pa.  535—1330,  1331.  1340. 
Jacobs   V.  Hooker,    1    Kdm.   Sel.   Cas. 

(N.  Y.)    472-756.  757. 
Jacobs  V.  Third  Ave.   R.  Co.,  71  App. 

Div.   (N.  Y.)    199—1703. 
Jacobs    V.    Tutt.    33    Fed.    412—1298, 

1299.   1.350.   1356. 


Jacobs    V.    West    End    St.    Ry.    Co. 

(Mass.),  59  N.  E.  639—1246. 
Jacobson  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  1  O. 

C.  D.  212—307,  471. 
Jackson  v.  Crilly,  16  Colo.  103—1598, 

1626. 
Jackson   v.    Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    7 

Ga.  App.  644—1571. 
Jackson   v.   Grand   Ave.   R.    Co.,    118 

Mo.   199—1593. 
Jackson    v.    Kansas    City   R,    Co.,    31 

Kan.  761—1476. 
Jackson   v.   Metropolitan    R.    Co.,   26 

W.  R.  175—1262. 
Jackson  v.  Natchez  &  W.  R.  Co.,  114 

La.  981—1085,  1202. 
Jackson  v.  Nieol,  7  Scott,  577 — 642. 
Jackson  v.  Old  Colony  St.  Ry.  Co.,  206 

Mass.  477—1152,  1546. 
Jackson    v.    Philadelphia    Tract.    Co., 

182  Pa.  St.  104—1637. 
Jackson  v.  Rogers,  2  Show.  327 — 117. 
Jackson  v.  Sacramento  Valley  R.  Co., 

23  Cal.  269—384,  413,  574. 
Jackson  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  47  N, 

Y.  274—1155,   1425,   1434. 
Jackson  v.  St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.,  52 

La.  Ann.  1706—1440. 
Jackson  v.  Tollett,  2  Stark.  37—1214. 
Jackson  Architectural  Iron  Works  v. 

Hurlbut,  151  N.  Y.  34—11,  19,  24, 

30,  72,  73,  74. 
Jackson  Architectural  Iron  Works  v. 

Hurlburt,    15    Misc.   Rep.    (N.   Y.) 

93—30. 
Jacksonville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    South- 
worth,  135  111.  250—1555. 
Jacksonville  S.  E.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Rabbitt, 

29  111.  App.  288—679. 
Jacksonville   St.   Ry.   Co.   v.    Cappell, 

21    Fla.   175—1247,   1593. 
Jacobus  V.   St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  20 

Minn.    125 — 419.    1031,    1033,    1450 

1450,   1461,   1465,  1573. 
Jacques    v.    Sioux    City   Tr.   Co.,    124 

Iowa,  257 — 1620. 
Jagorer  v.  People's  St.  Rv.  Co.,  180  Pa. 

436—1163. 
James  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  5  Int. 

Com.   C.  Rep.   612-1794. 
James  v.  Canadian  Pac  R.  Co.,  4  Int. 

Com.   Rep.  274 — 1797. 
James  v.  Metropolitan  St.  Rv.  Co..  80 

App.   Div.    (N.   Y.)    .364—1109. 
James,  etc..  Buggy  Co.  v.  Cincinnati, 


CXXXVIH 


TAIU.K  OF  CASES. 


('Jlie   roforonces  are   to   the   pagee. ) 


"tc.  R.  Co.,  3  Int.  Com.  Ucp.  082— 

1829. 
Jainiiiet  v.  AiiuMiiiUi  Storujje  &  Mov- 

ini:  Co.,  100  .Mo.  App.  257—74,  114. 
Jamison   v.   Chesupoake,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

9-2  Vii.  327— 12r)S. 
Jamison   v.   McDaiiiel,   25   ]\liss.    83 — 

350. 
Jamison  v.  San  Jose,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65 

Cal.  5!)3— 10S2.  1211. 
Jaiinv  V.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.,  G3 

Minn.  380—105!!. 
Jaipu'tte  V.   Cajiital   Traction  Co.,  34 

App.   D.  C.  41—056. 
Janline  v.  Cornell.  50  N.  J.  L.  485— 

1181.   1301.   1434,   1713. 
Jarrett  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Ga. 

347 — 1G78. 
Jarrett  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  74 

Minn.  477 — 271. 
Jasper  Trust  Co.  v.  Kansas  City,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  09  Ala.   416—179. 
Jav  Wai  Nam  v.  Anglo-Araorican  Oil 

Co.,  202   Fed.  822—2006. 
J.   C.   Williams   &   Co.  v.   Pensacola, 

etc.,  S.  S.  Co.,  57  Fla.  544—311. 
Jean  v.  Bart,  197  Fed.  1002—1999. 
Jeffersonviile,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Cleve- 
land. 2  Bush  (Ky.),  468,  473—385, 

301,  397. 
Jeffersonviile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Irvin,  46 

Fed.  180—227,  232. 
Jeffersonviile,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Parmalee, 

51   Ind.  44—998,   1237. 
Jeffersonviile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Riley,  39 

Ind.   508—1013,   1169. 
Jeffersonviile,  etc..   R.   Co.  v.  Rogers, 

93  Ind.  1106—1722. 
Jeffersonviile,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Swift,  26 

Ind.  450—1577.   1680. 
Jeffersonviile  R.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  29  Ind. 

498—306. 
Jeffersonviile  R.  Co.  v.  Hendricks,  26 

Ind.  228-1212,  1234,  1237.  1675. 
Jeffersonviile    R.    Co.    v.    Rogers,    38 

Ind.  116—1148,  1181,  1304.  1726. 
Jeffersonviile    R.    Co.    v.    Rogers,    28 

Ind.  1—1427,  1428,  1431. 
Jeffersonviile  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  26  Ind. 

4.50—1234. 
Jeffersonviile  R.  Co.  v.  White,  6  Bush 

fKv.),  251—530. 
Jeffrey  v.  Bigelow,  13  Wend.   (N.  Y.) 

518—564. 


Jeffries    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    88 

Neb.  208—250,  817,  840,   897. 
Jeffries   v.    Western    Uuiou   Telegraph 

Co.,  2  Ga.  App.  853—94. 
Jeffris  v.    Fitchburg  R.   Co.,  93   Wis 

250—644. 
Jellett   V.   St.   Paul,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   30 

Minn.  265—234,  262,  277,  582. 
Jemison  v.   McDaniel,   25  Mias.   S3 — 

145. 
Jemison   v.    Southwestern   R.   Co.,   75 

Ga.    444—145,    1297. 
Jeneks     v.     Coleman,    Fed.    Cas.    No. 

7.258     (2    Sumu.    U.    S.)    221—75, 

945,   1070,   1127,   1137,   1407. 
Jenkins  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51 

N.  Y.  Supp.  216—1416. 
Jenkins   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   41 

Wis.   112—1059. 
Jenkins  v.  Mbtlow,  1  Sneed.    (Tenn.) 

248—5,  9. 
Jenkins  v.  Picket,  17  Tenn.   (9  Yerg.) 

480—12,  71.  186. 
Jennings  v.  Clyde  S.  S.  Co.,  133  N.  Y. 

Supp.  298—2016. 
Jennings  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  127 

N.    Y.    438—30,   44,    452,   472,   480, 

482,   497,   735,   738,   753,   756,   759. 

1307. 
Jennings  v.  Grind  Trunk  R.  Co.,   15 

Ont.  App.  477—1054. 
Jennings  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  35 

L.  J.  Q.  B.   1.5—1071. 
Jennings   v.    Smith,    160    Fed.    139 — 

889. 
Jennings  v.  Smith,  99  Fed.  180 — 473. 
Jessel   v.  Bath,  L.   R.  2   Exch.   207 — 

220. 
Jessup   v.   Carnegie,   80   N.   Y.   441 — 

300. 
Jewell    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    54 

Wis.  610—1572.   1680. 
Jewell  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  55  N. 

H.  84—241,  272,  383,  405. 
Jewett  V.  Klein,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  550— 

1000. 
Jewett  V.  Olsen,  18  Or.  419 — 328,  320. 
J.   H.   Carter  &.   Co.  v.   Southern  Rv! 

Co.,  3  Ga.  Aj)jy.  34 — 443. 
J.  H.  Cownle  Glove  Co.  v.  Merchants' 

Dispatch    Transp.    Co.,    130    Iowa, 

327 — 22. 
J.    .T.     Douglass    Co.     v.     ]MiT;n  "o'l. 

Transfer    R.    Co.,    62    Minn.    288 — 

522,  528. 


lABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


CXXXIX 


J.  '^L  Pace  Mule  Co.  v.  Seaboard  Air 

Line  Ry.  Co.,  160  N.  C.  215—514. 

Joerg  V,  Atchison,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,   152 

111.  App.  229—407. 
John  V.  Bacon,  L.  R.  5   C.  P.  437— 

1121. 
John   V.   Northern   Pac.   Ry.    Co.,    42 

Mont.  18 — 146U,   1481. 
John  J.  Radel  Co.  v.  Borches,  147  Ky. 

506—1281. 
Johns  V.   Georgia  Rv.,   etc.,   Co.,   133 

Ga.  525—1609. 
John   Schroeder   Lumber   Co.   v.    Chi- 
cago &  X.  W.  Ry.  Co.,  135  Wis.  575 

-780,  796. 
Johnson  v.  Agricultural   Ins.   Co.,  25 

Hun   (N.  Y.).  251—1534. 
Johnson  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69 

Miss.   191—456,  578,  819,   1458. 
Johnson  v.  Alabama  Great  Southern 

R.   Co.    (Ala.),  37   So.   226—860. 
Johnson  v.  Boston,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   125 

Mass.  75 — 1015. 
Johnson  v.   Cavuga  &   S.   R.   Co.,   11 

Barb.    (N.  Y'.)    621—669. 
Johnson  v.  Chicago  R.  Co.,  58  Iowa, 

348—1258. 
Johnson   v.   Concord  R.   Corp.,  46  N. 

H.    213—1015,     1025,    1027,     1069, 

1070,   1558. 
Johnson  v.  Detroit,  etc..  R.  Co.,   130 

Mich.  453—1167. 
Johnson  v.  Dominion  Express  Co.,  28 

Ont.  Rep.  203—162. 
Johnson   v.    East   Tennessee,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,  90  Ge.  810—29,  343,  359,  736, 

745,  749. 
Johnson  v.  Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  619—270. 
Johnson    v.    Friar,    4    Yerg    (Tenn.), 

48—71. 
Johnson  v.   Grand  Trunk   R.   Co. 

X.   H.   626—328,   331. 
Jolinson  V.  Hudson  River  R.  Co. 

X.  Y.  6.5—1542,   1543.    1545. 
Johnson  v.  Int'Turban  St.  R.  Co.,  88 

X.   Y.    vSupp.    866-1477. 
Johnson   v.   Lightsey,    34   Ala.    169 — • 

358. 
Johnson  v.  Tymisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104 

Ala.  241—1402. 
•Tolinson    v.    ]VIanliattan    R.    Co.,    52 

Tliin    (X.   Y.),   111—1556. 
Joln«on   V.   Midland    R.   Co.,   4   Exch, 

307—117,   126,    135,   345. 


44 


20 


Johnson  v,  Xew  York   Cent.  R.   Co., 

33  X.  Y.  610—551,  638,  752. 
Johnson  v.  New   York   Cent.   R.   Co., 
39  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)   127—753,  776. 
Johnson  v.  Xorthern  Pac.  R,  Co.,  47 

Minn.  430—1716. 
Johnson  v.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 

Fla.  623—41,   101,   165. 
Johnson  v.  Philadelpliia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
63  Md.  106—999,  1014,   1026,  1455. 
Johnson    v.    Seattle   Electric   Co.,    35 

Wash.   382—1214. 
Johnson  v.  St.  Joseph  Ry.,  etc.,  Co., 

143   Mo.  App.   376—1622,    1686. 
Johnson  v.   Stoddard,   100  Mass.   306 

—191. 
Johnson  v.  Stone,  11  Humph.  (Tenn.) 

419—1291,   1296. 
Johnson    v.    Texas    Cent.    R.    Co.,    42 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  604—1066. 
Johnson  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  Ry,  Co.,   133 

Mich.  596—566,   754. 
Johnson  v.  Town  of  Irasburgh,  47  Vt. 

28—1600. 
.Johnson  v.  Washington  Water  P.  Co., 

62  Wash.  619—1002. 
Johnson  v.  Wells,  6  Xev.  224 — 1702, 

1718. 
Johnson  v.  West  Chester,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

70  Pa.  St.  357—1613. 
Johnson  v.   Winona,  etc.,   R.   Co.,    11 

Minn.  296—1665. 
Johnson  v.  Yazoo  &  M.  V.  R.  Co.,  94 

Miss.  447—1651, 
Johnson  v.  Yonkers  R.  Co.,  101  App. 

Div.    (X.  Y.)    6.5-1681. 
Johnson  Express  Co.  v.   Citv  of  Chi- 
cago, 136  111.  App.  368—39,  72. 
Johnson,    Xesbitt    &    Co.    v.    Gulf    &, 

Chicago  R.  Co.,  82  Miss.  452—293. 
Johnston  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R,  Co.,  70 

Xeb.    364—284,    837,    849. 
Johnston  v.  Davis,  60  Mich.  56 — 635. 
Johnston    v.    St.   Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

150  Mo.   App.   304 — 1109,    1651. 
Johnstone  v.   Richmond,  etc.,   R,   Co., 

39    S.    C.    5.5—431,    445,    458,    494, 

496,  571,  577,  889.  896,   1459. 
Joliet  St.  R.  Co.  V.  Call,  42  HI.  App. 

41—1556. 
Joliet  St.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Diiggan,  45  IIL 

.App.   450—1583. 
Jolly   V.   Atchinson    &   S.    F.  Ry.   Co. 

(Cal.  App.),  131  Pac.  1057—242. 


cxl 


TABLE  OK  CASES. 
(Tlie   refori'ncos   are   to   tlio   pages.) 


Jonas  V.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  21   Misc. 

U.    (N.  Y.)    300— 14S(). 
Joiii's  V.  Alabama  Miuoral  11.  Co.,  107 

Ala.  40^)— 15U9. 
Join's  V.  Andoi-son,  82  Aliu  302—530. 
Joiu's  V.   Bond,   40   Fed.   281—1297. 
Jones  V.   Boston,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  03   Me. 

18S— 039. 
Jones  V.  l^tv-^toii  &  N.  St.  R.  Co.,  205 

Mass.    lOS— 1472. 
Jones    V.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     103 

Mass.  245— !)S5,   1018. 
Jones  V.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  N. 

Y.   Supp.  2r);i— 159S. 
Jones    V.    Cliicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    43 

Minn.  279—1573. 
Jones    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    42 

Minn.   183—1243,  1680. 
Jones    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   20 

Minn.   125—1628. 
Jones   V.   Cincinnati,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   89 

Ala.  376—760,  771. 
Joni'5  V.  Earl,  37  Cal.  630—214,  499. 
Jones  V.   Fivcman,  29   Md.  273—693. 
Jones  V.  ^Tinneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91 

Minn.  229—308.  312.  575,  857. 
Jones  V.  Newport  News,  etc.,  Co.,  65 

Fed.  736—1867. 
Jones  V.  New  York  Cent.,  et-c.,  R.  Co., 

46  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   470—1009. 
Jones  V.  New  York,   etc.,   R.  Co.,   29 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    633—119,  357,  596. 
Jones   V.   Norwich,   etc.,   Transp.    Co., 

50   Barb.    (N.   Y^)    193—198,   1350, 

1353. 
Jones  V.  Pearl,   1   Stra.  556 — 649. 
Jones  V.  Pitcher,  3  Stew.  &  P.   (Ala.) 

13.5—26,  76. 
Jones   V.    Pricster.    1    Tex.    App.    Civ. 

Cas.   §   613—1296,   1298. 
Jones  V.  Quinev,  etc.,  R.  Co..  117  Mo. 

App.  523—902. 
Jone<?   V.    Seligman,   81    N.   Y.    191— 

1104. 
Jones      V.      Sovithern      Express      Co. 

(Miss.).   61    So.    165—442. 
Jones   V.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   89 

Mo.  App.  653-848. 
Jones  V.   St.    Ix)uis.  etc.,   R.  Co..    125 

Mo.  666—958.  1021,  1045,  1450. 
Jones  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115 

Mo.  App.  2.'^2— 924. 
Jones  V.  St.  Tx>uis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89 

Mo.  App.  653—770. 


Jones   V.    St.    Ixiuis   T.    M.    &    S.    Ry. 

Co.,    135    Mo.   App.   408—1160. 
Jones  V.  Union  Ry.  Co.,   18  App.  Div. 

(N.    Y.)    207—1478,    1508. 
Jones  V.  Voorhees,   10  Ohio,   145 — 62, 

427,    457,    1294,    1295,    1338,    1449, 

1452,  1453. 
Jones  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Mo. 

App.    158—1050,    1424. 
Jones  V.   Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,   18 

Fed.  Rep.  717—93. 
Jones    V.    Western    Vermont    R.    Co., 

27  Vt.  399 — 42. 
Jones-Lane     Co.     v.     Atlantic     Coast 

Line  R.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  580—888. 
Jordan  v.  American  E.vpres8  Co.,  80 

Me.  225—571. 
Jordan  v.  Fall  River  R.  Co.,  6  Cush. 

(Ma.ss.)   09—117,  1291,  1295,  1347, 

1348,   1364. 
Jordan  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.    (Miss.), 

58  So.  595—911,  938. 
Jordan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  165 

Mass.  346—1600. 
Jordan  v.   Pennsylvania  Co.,   18  Am. 

&  Eng.  R.  Cas'.  647—232. 
Jordan   v.    Seattle,   etc.,   Ry.    Co.,   47 

Wash.    503—1485. 
Jordan  v.  St.  Louis  &  M.  R.  Co.,  122 

Mo.  App.  330-1492. 
.Jorpev    V.    \\  il.iams,    3    Dalv,    162 — 

135*6. 
Joseph  V.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Ga. 

426—747. 
Joslin  V.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

53   Mich.   322—1562. 
Joslyn  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  51  Vt. 

92 227. 

Jov  V.   Winnisimmet   Co.,    114   Mass. 

63—59. 
Jovnes   V.   Pennsylvania   R.    Co.,   235 

Pa.  232—348,  365. 
Jovnes   V.    Pennsylvania   R.    Co.,   234 

Pa.  321—723. 
J.    P.   Williams   &    Co.   v.    Pensacola, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Fla.  544—362. 
J.    Russell    Mfg.    Co.    v.    New    Haven 

Steamboat  Co.,  50  N.  Y.   121—249. 
J.  S.  Appel  Suit  &  Cloak  Co.  v.  Piatt, 

132  Pac.   71—500. 
J.    T.    iMorgan    Lumber    Co.   v.    West 

Kentucky  Co.,  811   Fed.  271—55. 
Judd    v.    Littlejohn,    11    Wis.    176— 

675. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 

(The  references  are   to   the   pages.) 


cxli 


Judd  V.  New  York,   etc.,  S.  Co.,   117 

Fed.  206—412. 
J*Udson    Freight    Forwarding    Co.    v. 

IXlaware,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  163  111.  App. 

22—629. 
Judson  V.  Giant  Powder  Co.,  107  Cal. 

549—1479,   1507. 
Judson    V.    Western   R.    Co.,   6   Allen 

(Mass.),    486 — 424,   425,    427,    493, 

528,  1452. 
Judson  V.  Western  R.  Corp.,  86  Mass. 

(4  Allen)    520—171,  375,  7G3,  774. 
Julien    V.    Steamer    Wade    Hampton, 

27  La.  Ann.  377— 12G2,  1512. 
Junction    Puiilroad    Co.    v.    Bank    of 

Ashland,    12'  Wall.    (U.    S.)    226— 

450. 
June  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  153  Mass. 

79—1018,  1019. 
Junod    V.    Chicai^^o,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    47 

Fed.  290—1829. 
Jurkic^vicz   v.   111.    Cent.   R.   Co.,    145 

111.  44 — 1686. 


K. 

Kaase  v.   Gulf,   etc..   R.   Co.,  41   Tex. 

Civ.  App.  370—1009. 
Kaeiser   v.   Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.,    18 

Fed.  151—1758. 
Kahn   v.    Atlantic,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    115 

N.  C.  638—1352. 
Kain  v.  Smith,  80  N.  Y.  468—45,  46. 
Kaiser  v.  Hoey,  1  N.  Y.  Supp.  429— 

478,  480. 
Kaiser  v.  Latimer,  40  App.  Div.    (N. 

Y.)    149—1478. 
Kaisnr  v.  Northern  Pac.  Rv.  Co.,  203 

Fed.  993—1570,   1606. 
Kaiser  v.  St.  Ivouis  Tr.  Co.,   lOG  Mo. 

.•\pp.   708—1619. 
Kalina  &  Cizek  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co. 

(Kan.).  76  Pac.  438 — 906. 
Kallman    v.    United    States    Express 

Co..  3  Kan.  20.5—425,  455,  493,  576, 

578. 
Kallmrrten    v.    Cowen,    111    Fed.   297 

—  1520. 
Kambour  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.  R.    (N. 

11.),  86  Atl.  624—1.591,  1098. 
Kane  v.  Cicero,  etc..  R.  Co.,   100  111. 

.\pp.    181—954,   1215. 
Kansas  A   A.  V.  P.   Co.  v.  Ayers,  63 

Ark.  331—887. 


Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnctt, 
69  Ark.   ioO— 860. 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beck- 
ham (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  152  S.  W. 
228—824,  818. 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cox,  25 
Okla.  774—172. 

Kansas   Citv,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Dalton, 

65  Kan.  661—1710. 

Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flvnn,  78 

Mo.  195—1545. 
Kansas   City,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.    Foster, 

134  Ala.  244—1448. 
Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fite,   67 

Miss.  373—1722. 
Kansas   City,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Graham 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  145  S.  W.  632— 

877. 
Kansas  Citv.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Higdou, 

04  Ala.  286-98,  1297. 
Kansas   Citv,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Holden, 

66  Ark.  602—1428. 

Kansas  Citv,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holland, 

68   Miss. '351— 151,   518,    804. 
Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kellv,  36 

Kan.  655 — 1181. 
Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kirksev, 

48  Ark.  366—1019. 
Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Lilly 

(Miss.),   8   So.   644—128,   156,   184. 
Kansas    City,   etc..    R.    Co.    v.   Little, 

66  Kan.  378—1711,  1719. 
Kansas   City,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  McCun- 

ninghara '(Tex.  Civ.  App.),   149   S. 

W.  420—853. 
Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McGahev, 

63  Ark.  344—1358. 
Kansas  Citv,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morrison, 

34    Kan.    502—396,    1297. 
Kansa-s   City,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Patten, 

3  Kan.  App.  338—385,   13.10,   1.356, 

1359. 
Kansa.s  City,  etc.,  P.  Co.  v.  Phillihcrt, 

25  Kan.  586—1544. 
Kansas  Citv,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Phillips, 

98  Ala.  159—1154. 
Kansas  Citv,  etc.,  P.  Co.  v.  Rilov,  68 

Miss.  76.5-1027,    1417. 
Kan.sas    City,   etc.,    P.    Co.    v.    Rode- 

baugh,    38    Kan.    45 — 1452,     1454 

1455. 
Kansas  Citv,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sanders, 

98  Ala.  293—1131.  1263,  1726. 
Kansa,s    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Simp- 


oilii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


(The   reffroiicoH   arc   Id   tlu'   pagea.) 


»on.    30    Iviui.    645 — 438,    4i>j,    4l>3, 

1450. 
Kiuiaits    Cit^',    t'tc,    K.    Co.    v.    SU>uor, 

4y  1«W.  -JO'J— 141)4. 
Kansiis    City,   etc-.,    U.    Co.    v.    SIoiut, 

51    Fttl.  tJ49— liiUS.    12t>it. 
Kansas  City,  etc.,  H.  Co.  v.  \\  usliing- 

lon,  74  Ark.  D— 13G1. 
Kansas    City,    etc..    K.    Co.    v.    Wi'st 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),   149  S.  W.  20li— 

S45,  S74. 
Kansas  Citv  Soutliom  H.  Co.  v.  Carl, 

227    U.   S.   lJ31t— 500,    1!)14. 
Kansas  Citv  SoiiUuTn  K.  Lo.  v.  Carl, 

!)1    Ark.  07—11)20. 
Kansas  City  S.  K.  Co.  v.  C.  H.  Albers, 

Commission    Co..    223   U.    S.    573— 

1S3G,    1S43,   1847. 
Kansas  City  Suutlicrn  R.  Co.  v.  C.  H. 

AllK'rs  Ck>mmission  Co.,  79  Kan.  50 

— GG5,   713.   724. 
Kansas  Citv  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Davis, 

83  Ark.  217—1532.  1597. 
Kansas  City  Southern  R,  Co.  v.  Rose- 

brook-Josey   Grain    Co.    (Tex.    Civ. 

App.),    114    S.   W.    436—104,    177, 

290. 
Kansas     Citv    Southern     R.     Co.    v. 

Thomas,   97   Ark.   287—1358, 
Kansas  Citv  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Wat- 
son,  102  Ark.  499—1006. 
Kansas  City  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Wor- 

thington,    101   Ark.    128-1685. 
Kansas  City  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Brooks,  84 

Ark.  233—1981. 
Kansas  City  S.  R.   Co.  v.  Nixon-Mc- 

Clintock  Co.   (Ark.),  154  S.  W.  205 

891,  913. 
Kan.'^as  City  S.  R.  Co.  v.  vSkinner,  88 

Ark.   189—1291,   1292,   1293. 
Kansas    Citv    Transfer    Co.    v.    Neis- 

-n-anger,     iS    Mo.     App.     103—381, 

631. 
Kansas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Avres,  63  Ark. 

331—843,  880. 
Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Bayles,    19 

Colo.  348—160. 
Kansas,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Dorough,   72 

Tex.  108-1577. 
Kansas    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Keesler,    18 

Kan.  52.3—1424,   1145.   1722. 
Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Ludin,  3  Colo. 

94—1083. 
Kansas    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    McCann,    2 

Wvo.  3—693. 


Kansas  Pac.  K.  Co.  v.  Miller,  2  Colo. 

442—1082,   1220,   1501,  1557. 
Kansas    Pac.    K.    Co.    v.   Moutelle,    10 

Kan.    Hit— 1345. 
Kan-as  Pac.  K.  Co.  v.  Nichols,  9  Kan. 

235,  25.3—23,  12G. 
Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Pcavey,  29  Kan. 

169 — 455. 
Kansas   Pac.   R.   Co.   v.   Reynolds,    17 

Kan.  251—419,  440,  446,  1452,  1456. 
Kansas    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Reynolds,    8 

Kan.  623—576,  579,  597. 
Kansas    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Salmon,    11 

Kan.  83—1063. 
Kaplan   v.  Lyons  Building  &  0.   Co., 

61  Misc.  li.   (N.  Y.)    315—1612. 
Kaplan  v.   Midland   R.  Terminal   Co., 

88  N.  Y.  Supp.  94.')— 821,  832. 
Kaplan  v.  Titus,   140  App.  Div.    (N. 

Y.)    416—1350. 
Kappes  v.  Brown  Shoe  Co.,   116  Mo. 

App.   154—1067. 
Karle  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 

Mo.  476—1511. 
Karr   v.   Milwaukee   Light,   etc.,    Co., 

132  Wis.  662—983,  1604. 
Kaskaskia   Bridge  Co.  v.   Shannon,   1 

Gilm.    (Iil.(    15—163. 
Kates  V.  Atlanta  Baggage  &  Cab  Co., 

107  Ga.  630—708,  1127. 
Katz    V.    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    46 

Misc.  R.   (N.  Y.)   259—623,  1363. 
Katzenstein   v.   Raleigh,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

84  N.  C.  688—353. 
Kauevsky  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

53  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  564—1341. 
Kauffman    Milling    Co.    v.    Missouri 

Pac.  R.  Co.,  3  Int.  Com.  Rep.  400— 

1787. 
Kaweabany   v.   Boston   &  M.   R.   Co., 

199  Mass.  586—626. 
Kav   V.   Metropolitan   St.   R.   Co.,   29 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   466—1494. 
Kean   v.    Baltimore,    etc.,   R.    Co.,   61 

Md.  154—1596. 
Kearnev  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

6  Q.  B.  759—1479. 
Kearnev  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

5  Q.'B.  411—1478. 
Kearnev   v.    Seaboard    Air    Line   Ry,, 

158  N.  C.  521—1568,  1667. 
Keating  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  97 

Mich.  154—1021,   1041. 
Keating  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  49  N.  Y.  673—1236,  1238,  1243. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


cxliii 


Keating  v.  New  York  Central,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,   3   Lans.    (N.    Y.)    469—1230, 

1624. 
Keator  v.  Scranton  Traction  Co.,  191 

Pa.  St.   102—962,   1007,   1505. 
Kebbee  v.   Connecticut  Co.,   85   Conn. 

641—1634. 
Keefe  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co..  142  Mass. 

251—1012. 
Keegan  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  34  App. 

Div.    (X.   Y.)    297—1214,    1217. 
Keegan   v.   Western   R.   Co.,   8  X.   Y. 

115—1541. 
Keeler   v.   Goodwin.    Ill    Mass.   490 — 

267. 
Keeling  &  Field  v.  Walter  Connolly  & 

Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  157  S.  W.  232 

—673. 
Keen   v.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   129 

Mo.  App.  301—1169. 
Kecne  v.  Lizardi.  5  La.  431 — 1176. 
Keene  v.  The  Whistler,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo. 

7.645    (2   Sawy.   348)— 1991. 
Koeney  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co..  47  N. 

Y.  52.5—157.  402. 
Keeter  v.  Wilmington,  etc..  R.  Co.,  86 

X.  C.  346—353. 
Kofaurer  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

122  Fed.  966—1505. 
Kehan   v.   Wa-shinErton   Rv..   etc.,   Co., 

28  App.  D.  C.  108—1547. 
Keifner    v.    Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

223  Pa.  St.  .50—979.   1603. 
Keith  V.  Pinkham.  43  Me.  501—1627. 
Kelham  v.  Steamship  Kensington,  24 

La.  Ann.  100—570. 
Keller  v.  Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co.,   196 

Pa.  St.  57—923. 
Keller  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   174 

Pa.  St.  02—707. 
Keller  v.  Hestonville.  etc.,  P.  R.  Co., 

149  Pa.  St.  6.5—1607. 
Keller  v.  Xew  York   Cent.  R.   Co..   2 

Abb.  App.  Dec.   fX\  Y.)   480—1225, 

1243. 
Keller  v.  Sioux  Citv.  etc.,  R.  Co..  27 

Minn.   178— 1237."  12tO,   1542.   1565. 
Kellprman    v.    Kansas    City,    etc.,    R. 

To.    (Kan.).  34  S.  W.  41—431. 
Kellerman    v.    Kansas    Citv,    etc.,    R. 

To.,  136  Mo.  177—660. 
KHlev  V.  Oriind  Trunk  W.  R.  Co..  46 

Ind.  Apn.  697—1408.  1537. 
Kellev  V.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109 

X.  Y.  44— nOS.  1488. 


Kellogg  V.  Boston  &  M.  R.  R.  Co.,  210 

:Mass.  324—1667. 
Kellogg  V.   Xew  York   Cent.,   etc.,  R. 

Co.,  79  X.  Y.  72— 172S. 
Kellogg  V.   Sowerby,  87   N.  Y.   Supp. 

412—710. 
Kellogg  V.   Suffolk,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    100 

X.  C.  158—128, 
Kellow    V.    Central   Iowa   R.    Co.,    68 

Iowa,  470—1212,  1263,  1268. 
Kelly  V.  Adams  Express  Co.,  134  Ky. 

208—797. 
Kelly  V.  Grand  Trunk  W.  Ry.  Co.,  46 

Ind.  App.  697—1468,  1537. 
Kelly   V.    Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    70 

Mo.  604,  607—1598,  1677. 
Kelly    V.   Lewis   Inv.   Co.    (Or.),    133 

Pac.  826 — 1530. 
Kelly  V.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  112  X.  Y. 

443—1081.  1108.  1125. 
Kelly  V.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co.,  89 

App.  Div.   (X.  Y.)    159—1211. 
Kelly  V.  Rhoads,  188  U.  S.  1—1734, 
Kelly  V.   Southern  Minnesota  R.   Co.,- 

28  Minn.  98—1556. 
Kelton   V.    Taylor,    11    Lea     (Tenn.), 

264—551. 
Kemendo  v.  Fruit  Dispatch  Co.   (Tex. 

Civ.  Ap.),  131  S.  W.  73—298,  1904, 

1920.  1924. 
Kemp  v.  Coughtrv,  11  Johns.   (N.  Y.) 

107—8,  75,  109,   110,  265. 
Kemp  v.  Western  Union  TeL  Co.,  28 

Xeb.  661 — 92. 
Kendall  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

7  Exch.  373—822,  823. 
Kennard  v.  Burton,  25  Me.  39 — 1541. 
Kennedy  v.  Birmingham  Ry.,  etc.,  Co 

(Ala.),   35   So.    108—1394. 
Kennedy   v.   ^^lobile,   etc.,   R.    Co     74 

Ala.  430—198,  384. 
Kennedy  v.  Xorth  Jersey  St.  R    Co 

3  St.  Ry.  Rep.  608   (X^  J.  Supp.)  — 

975. 
Kennedy  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co     130 

X.  Y.  054—1561. 
Kenney   v.   New   York   Cent.,   etc..   R. 

Co.,   125  X.  Y.  422—92,  462    1440 

14.54.   1463. 
Krnnon  v.  Railroad  Co.,  51   La    Ann 

l.Sflfl — 1222. 
Kenny    v.    Xew    York    Cent.,    etc      R 

Co..   125  X.  Y.  422—519. 
Kent  v.  Tfudson  River  R.  Co..  '>2  Barb 

(X.   Y.)    278—357,  590. 


C.\llV 


TABLE  OF  CA^ES. 


(Tlie    loftTi'iiffs   urc    to   llie    [fiiges.; 


KiMit  V.   Miillaiul    U.  (,\...   L.    K.    10  Q. 

H.   1— 74!t,  7 lis. 
Kent    &    Downs    v.    \\  aiUi'v    Soutlicrii 

Ky.  Vo.,  I. Hi  (ui.  S.">7— fiO'J. 
Kontuckv  Bank  v.  .vdiims  Kxpross  Co., 

!);!  r."s.  174— S!)a,  1457. 

Kfutiu'kv    font.    R.    Co.    v.    Dills,    4 

nnsli."(Ky.)    593—15158.   \lS.i. 
Kcntiukv  (.Vnt.  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  79 

Kv.  TCO— 1114.  1244.  1544,  1(J27, 

U;2S. 
Kcntuikv   tVnt.   R.   Co.   v.  Thomas,  6 

Ky.   Law   Rep.  5!)'.)— 1053. 
Kentucky,   etc..   Bridgo   Co.   v.   Tx)uis- 
ville,  etc.,  R.  Co..  37  Fed.  507—77, 

105.    729,    751.    1760,     1701.    I77G, 

1791.   1S24.   1825,  1S52. 
Kentucky,   etc.,   Brid}?e   Co.   v.   Quin- 

kort.  2  Iml.  App.  244—1220,   1254, 

Kills. 
Kcntuikv.  etc..  Ins.  Co.  v.  Western  & 

A.  R.  Co.,  67  Tenn.  (8  Baxt.)  268— 

242.  774. 
Kentucky  Wagon  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio  & 

M.  Ry.  Co.,  98  Kv.   152—627,  093, 

701. 
Keokuk  Northern  Line  Packet  Co.  v. 

True.  68  Til.  008-1013.  11G9. 
Kinkuk   Packet  Co.  v.  Henry,  50  111. 

o(;4_95P.    12S4.    1005. 
Kepner  v.  Harrisburg  Tract.  Co.,  183 

Pa.  24—1508. 
Keppel  V.  Petcr.sburg  R.  Co.,  Chase's 

Dec.   (a.  S.)    167—324. 
Kerr  y.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  100  111. 

App.   148-1020. 
Kerr  v.  Grand   Trunk   R.   Co..  24  U. 

C.  C.  P.  209— ]:Mn. 
Kerr     t.     Liverpool,    etc..    R.    Co.,    12 

Wklv.  Dig.  (N.  Y.)  20.5—447. 
Kerwhacker  V.  Cleveland,  etc..  R.  Co., 

3  Ohio  St.  172—1258. 
Kes«enger    v.    Fitzgerald.    152    N.    C. 

247—866.  941,   19.')2.   1979. 
Kessler  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 

N.  Y.  538—1300. 
Ketchum  v.   American  Merchants'  U. 

Exp..  52  Mo.  390—425,  457,  572. 
Kettenhofen  v.  Globe  Transfer  &  Stor- 
age Co..  70  Wa-sh.  645—114. 
Keves-Marshall  Bros.  Livery  Co.  v.  St. 

Louis  &  H.  Ry.  Co.,  105  Mo.  App. 

556—786. 
Keves-Marshall  Bros.  Livery  Co.  v.  St. 


Leans,  etc..    H.  Co.    (Mo.   App.),  81' 

S.  \V.  53—904. 
Keyser    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    66 

Mich.  390—1504. 
Keystone  Lumber  Yard  v.  Ya/.oo  &  M. 

V.  R.  Co.,  97  Miss.  433—251. 
Kidd   v.  Pear.son,    128   U.  S.   1—1735. 

1S52. 
Kid  will   v.   Chesapeake  &  O.  Ry.  Co. 

(W.  Va.).  77  S.  K.  285—977. 
Kill"  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Kan. 

263—459,    771. 
Kill"  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   117 

]\!ass.  591—37,  330,  333. 
Kiglit  V.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  21  Ai>i>. 

D.  C.  494—1199,   1211. 
Kight  V.  Wrightsville  &  T.  R.  Co.,  127 

(Ja.  204—380.  400,  409. 
Kilduir    V.    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co.,    195 

Mass.   307—1003. 
Killam  v.  Wellesley  &  B.  St.  Ry.  Co. 

(Mass.),  101  N.  E.  374-1520. 
Killniever   v.    Wheeling   Traction    Co. 

(W.'Va.),  77  S.  E.  908—902,   1577. 
Kilpatrick    v.   Pennsylvania   Co.,    140 

Pa.  St.  502—1680. 
Kilroy    v.    Delaware,   etc..    Canal    Co., 

121    N.  Y.   22—257. 
Kimball  v.  American  Express  Co.,  76 

N.  H.  81—829. 
Kimball   v.  Rutland   Railroad,  26  Vt. 

247—14,  33.   42,  51.  289,   427,  419, 

785,  822,  1452,  14.56. 
Kimball  v.  Western  R.  Corp.,  6  Grav 

(Mass.),  542—193.  204,  404. 
Kime  v.  Southern  Ry.,  Co.,  100  N.  C. 

457—889,   926. 
Kime  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  150  N.  C. 

451—887. 
Kime  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  153  N.  C. 

398—880.    884. 
Kimcs  V.    St.   Louis,   etc..    R.    Co..    85 

Mo.    611—589. 
Kimic  V.   San   .Tnse-Los  G.   T.   R.   Co., 

150  Cal.  379—1497. 

Kindall  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

7  Exch.  37.3—33. 
Kindellan  v.  Mt.  Washington  R.  Co., 

70  N.  H.  54—1004. 
Kindlev  v.  Seaboard  Air  Line  L.  Ry., 

151  N.  C.  207—1369. 

King  V.   Central   of   Ga.   R.   Co.,    107 

Ga.  754—961,   1006. 
King  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  69  Miss. 

245—1184. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are  to   the   pages.) 


cxlv 


King  V.  Interstate  Consol.  St.  R.  Co. 

(R.  I.),  51  Atl.  301—1215. 
King  V.  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  C2  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)    160—739,  760. 
King  V.  New  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

36  Misc.  R.   (X.  Y.)   555—203,  383, 

393. 
King  V.  New  York.  etc..  R.  Co.,  3  Int. 

Com.  Rep.  272—1797. 
King  V.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Fed.  413 

1187. 
King  V.  Richards,  6  Whart.  (Pa.)  418 

—209,  532. 
King  V.   ShcDherd,   3    Story    (U.    S.), 

349—75,  318,  588. 
King   V.    Southern    Ry.    Co.,    128   Ga. 

285—1179. 
King  V.  Woodbridge,  34  Vt.  565 — 437, 

599,  602,  616. 
Kingman   v.   Lvnn   &   B.   R.   Co..    181 

Mass.  387— i092. 
Kingman  St.  Louis  Implement  Co.  v. 

Southern  Ry.  Co..  133  Mo.  App.  317 

—202. 
Kingsford  v.  Merrv,  26  L.  J.  Exch.  83 

—210. 

Kingsley  v.   Lake  Sliore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

125  Mass.  54—945,  1266. 
Kingston  v.  Fort  Wayne  &  E.  R.  Co., 

112   Mich.   40—1198. 
Kinkade    v.    Atlantic    Ave.    R.    Co.,    9 

Mi.sc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  273—1218,  1238. 
Kinnavey  v.  Terminal  R.  Ass'n  of  St. 

Louis,'  81   Fed.  S02— 1964. 
Kinnear  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,   19  L.  T. 

N.  S.  387— 6;J2. 
Kinner    v.    Lake    Shore,    etc..    R.    Co., 

69  Ohio  St.  339—1029. 
Kinney  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  34  N.  J.  L. 

51.3—1033. 
Kinney  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  32  N.  J.  L. 

407—1331,   1450,   1462,  1465. 
Kinney  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

5  Q.  B.  411—1479. 
Kinney  v.  Ivouisville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  99 

Ky.   59—1166,    1194. 
Kinney     v.     Loui-ville.     etc..     R.     Co. 

(Ky.)    34  S.  W.   1066— 1190. 
Kinney   v.   New    York    Cent.,   etc.,    R. 

Co.,  125  N.  Y.  422—497,  1165. 
Kinnick    v.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    69 

Iowa,   665—34,  359,   819,   823,   838 

926. 
Kinsley  V.   Lake   Shore,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

125  Mass.  54—68. 


Kirby  v.   Adams  Express  Co.,  2  Mo. 

App.  369—23.  39,  41,  457. 
Kirby  v.  Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.,  242  IlL 

418—538,  839.  929,  1804. 
Kirby  v.  Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.,  146  111. 

App.  31— ISS.l. 
Kirbv  V.  Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  20 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    473—549. 
Kirov   V.   Western   Union   Tel.   Co.,   7 

S.  D.  623—70,  90. 
Kird  V.  New  Orleans  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

105  La.  Ann.  226—1216. 
Kirk  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Minn. 

161—385. 
Kirk    V.    Folsom,   23   La.   Ann.   584 — 

576,   1993. 
Kirk   V.   Lehigh    Vallev   Transp.   Co., 

135  Mo.  App.  99 — 763. 
Kirk  V.   Seattle   Elec.   Co.,   58   Wash. 

283—1392,    1396,   1399,   1411,   1432. 
Kirkendall  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  200 

Fed.    197—1467,   1495. 
Kirkland  v.   Charleston,  etc.,   R.  Co., 

79   S.  C.   273—1391. 
Kirkland  v.  Dinsmore,  62  N.  Y.  171 — 

430,  431,  434,  445. 
Kirkland  v.  Leary,  2  Sweeny   (N.  Y. ) 

677—358,   596. 
Kirkman  v.  Shawcross,  6  T.  R.  14 — 

630. 
Kirkpatriek   v.   Metropolitan   St.   Ry. 

Co.,   161  Mo.  App.  515—967,   1538, 

1628. 
Kirst  V.   Milwaukee,   etc.,  R.  Co.,  46 

Wis.  489—571,  1479. 
Kirtland    v.     Montgomery,     1     Swan 

Crenii.)    452—5,  9,   10,  14,  76,   108, 

110. 
Kizir  V.  Tdxarkana.  etc.,  Rv.  Co.,  66 

Ark.  348—1847. 
Klair    v.    Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Del.   Super.),   78   Atl.    1085—785, 

830,  861.  893,  897,  900,  911,  932. 
Klair   v.    ^^■ilmington    Steamboat   Co. 

(Del.   Super.)    54   Atl.   694 — 492. 
Klass  Commission  Co.  v.  Wabash  R. 

Co.,    80    Mo.    App.    164—398. 
Klauber  v.  American  Express  Co.,  21 

Wis.   21-560,   555. 
Kleflman  v.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co., 

116   App.   Div.  334—1652. 
Kleiber  v.  Peoples  R.  Co.,  107  Mo.  240 

—  1565,  1583. 
Klein   v.   Dun  lap,    16  Misc.  Rep.    (N. 

Y.)    34—738. 


ex 


Ivi 


TAHl.E  OF  CASKS. 
(The   references   are   to   tlie   pages.) 


Klein    v.    Hamburg- Amerieiiii    Paeket 
Co.,    3    Daly     (N.    Y.)     3!)0— 1350, 
13:)1,   1350. 
Kl.in  V.  Jewett,  27   N.  J.   Eq.  mO— 

1213. 
KKin  V.  Jewett,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  474—46, 

47.  1213. 
Klenk   v.   Oregon   Short  Line   R.   Co., 

27  Utah.  42S— 1434. 
Kline  v.  Central  Pae.  R.  Co.,  37  Cal. 

4t)0— 12r)S.    142ti.    l.')S2. 
Klinger  v.  United  Tract.  Co..  02  App. 

Div.    (N.  Y.)    100—1211.   ir)01. 
Kloppenburg  v.  Minneaitolis,  etc.,  Ry. 

Co.    (iMinn.),  143  X.  W.  322— 16r)9. 
Klutts   V.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  75 

Mo.  042—1704.   1705,   1715. 
Knapp  V.  Curtis,  9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)   GO 

— S2. 
Knapp  V.  Murray,  18  How.  Pr.    (N. 

Y.)    165—1269. 
Knapp  V.  Sprague,  9  Mass.  262 — 530. 
Knapp,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McCaffrey,  178  111. 

107—17. 
Knauff    v..    San    Antonio    Tract.    Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  70  S.  W.  1011— 

1218. 
Knauss   v.    Lake   Erie   &   W.   R.   Co. 

(Ind.  App.),  64  N.  E.  95 — 1655. 
Knell  V.  United  States,  etc.,  S.  Co.,  1 

J.  &  S.    (N.  Y.)   423—453,  461. 
Knieriem  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,   116  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    661— 

1386. 
Knieriem  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,   109  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    709— 

1295. 
Knight   V.   Pontchartrain   R.   Co.,   23 

La.  Ann.  462—1613. 
Knight  V.   Portland,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  56 

Me.  234—1016,   1212,   1361. 
Knight  V.  Providerce,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 

R?I.  572—638,  740,  778. 
Knight   V.   Quincy,   etc.,    R.   Co.,    120 

Mo.  App.  311—788. 
Knight  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  65   S.  C. 

78—385. 
Knott  V.  Botany  Worsted  Mills,   179 

U.  S.   69—2023. 
Knott  V.  Raleigh,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  98  N. 

C.   73—740,   754. 
Knowles  v.  .\tlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

Me.  55—10. 


Knowles  v.  Dabney,  105  Mass.  437— 

;f.')0. 
Knowles  v.  Norfolk  Southern  R.  Co., 

102   N.   C.   59—1720. 
Knowles   v.   Pittsburgh,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

4  IJiss.    (U.  S.)    466-745. 
Knowiton  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  19  Ohio  St. 

260—449,   451,   457,    1450. 
Knowiton  v.  Milwaukee  City   R.  Co., 

59  Wis.  278—998,  1580,  1599. 
Knowiton    v.    Providence,    etc.,    S.    S. 

Co.,  33  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.    (1  Jones 

&  S.)    370—1992. 
Knox  V.  Rives,  14  Ala.  249—10,  101). 
Knoxville  Iron  Co.  v.  Dobson,  7  Lea 

(Tenn.)    367—1120. 
Knoxville  Traction  Co.  v.  Lane,   103 

Tenn.  376—1150,  1176. 
Knoxville  Traction  Co.  v.  Wilkerson, 

117   Tenn.  482— 
Knuckey  v.   Butte   Elec.   Ry.   Co.,   41 

Mont.    314—1482. 
Knudsen-Ferguson  Fruit  Co.  v.  Michi- 
gan  Cent.   R.   Co.,   148   Fed.   968— 

1841,  1890. 
Koch  V.  Brooklvn  Heights  R.  Co.,  75 

App.   Div.    (N.  Y.)    282—1186. 
Koeline  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

App.  Div.  (N,  Y.)  419—1116,  1214. 
Koeneg   v.   Union   Depot   R.   Co.,    173 

Mo.  698—1081. 
Koetter  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  13  N.  Y. 

Supp.  458—1562,   1716,   1717. 
Kohra  V.   Interborough   Rapid   Trans. 

Co.,  93  N.  Y.  Supp.  671—1108. 
Kohn  V.  Nassau  Electric  R.  Co.,  117 

N.   Y.   Supp.   231—963,   1007. 
Kohn  V.  Packard,  3  La.  224—257,  398, 

399. 
Kolm  V.  Riclimond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  S. 

C.  1—206,  209,  331. 

Kohner   v.    Capital   Tr.   Coi,   22   App. 

D.  C.  181—1486. 

Kolb   V.    Southern   Ry.   Co.,   81    S.   C. 

536—620. 
Konieszny  v.  Detroit  &  M.  Rv.  Co.,  17 

Detroit   Leg.   N.    1002,    128   N.   W. 

1096—1535. 
Konkle  v.  St.  Paul  City  Ry.  Co.,  119 

Minn.   177—1400. 
Konky    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    40 

Iowa,  205—1270. 
Koran  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  85 

Kan.  707—963,  1007. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


cxlvii 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Korn  V.  Chesapeake  &  0.  R.  Co.,  125 

Fed.  897—1405. 
Kouea  v.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co.,  86 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    611—1681. 
Koumm    v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Ark.),  76  S.  W.  1075—1632. 
Kowalski  v.   Newark   Pass.   Ry.    Co., 

15  N.  J.  L.  50—1097. 
Kozminsky  v.  Oregon   Short  Line  R. 

Co.,  36  Utah,  454—1391. 
Kramer  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 
100  N.  Y.  Supp.'276,  114  App.  Div. 
804—1652. 
Kramer  v.  New  Orleans  City  &  L.  R. 

Co.,  51   La.  Anm   1689—1596. 
Kreimelmann  v.  Jordan    (Mo.  App.) 

80  S.  W.  323—1609. 
Kremer   v.   Southern   Express   Co.,    6 

Coldw.    (Tenn.)    356—393,   400. 
Kressin  v.   Central   R.   Co.   of  N.   J., 
119    App.   Div.    (N.   Y.)    86—1344, 
1359,  1382. 
Kreuder  v.  Woolcott,  1  Hilt.   (N.  Y.) 

223—81,  559. 
Kreusen  v.  Fortv-Second  St.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  13  N.  Y.  Supp.  588—1189. 
Kreuziger  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  73 

Wis.  158—1710,  1719,  1728. 
Kriedermacher  v.  Union  Ry.  Co.,  110 

N.  Y.  Supp.   113—1623. 
Krone  v.  Southwest  ^Missouri  El.  Ry. 

Co..  97  Mo.  App.  609—1198. 
Kroner  v.  St.  Louis  Tr.  Co.,  107  Mo. 

App.  41—1681. 
Kruck   V.   Connecticut   Co.,   84   Conn. 

401—1548,   1698. 
Krudler  v.  Ellison,  47  N.  Y.  37—244, 

272. 
Kruger  v.  Omalia.  etc.,  St.  Ry.  Co.,  80 

Noh.  490—1684. 
Krulevitz  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  143  Mass. 

228—1184. 
Krulevitz  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  140  Mass. 

57:{_1148. 
Kruse  V.   St.   Louis,   etc..   R.   Co..   97 

Ark.   137—962,  968,   1019,   1275. 
Kueblor  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 

N.  Y.  Supp.  187—1587. 
Kuhnen  v.  Union  R.  Co.,  10  App.  Div. 

(N.  Y.)    19.5—1.541. 
Kumler  v.  .Tunction    R.   Co.,   33   Oliio 

St.    150— 10(;:i. 
Kilter    V.    Micliigan    Cent.    R.    Co..    1 
BiPS.     (U.    S.)     3.5—108,    454,    524, 
526. 


Kuttner  v.  Central  R.  Co.  of  N.  Y., 

80  N.  J.  Law,  11—1490. 
Kyle  V.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Q.  C. 

C.  P.  76—482. 
Kyle  V.  Laurens  R.  Co.,   10  Rich.  L. 

(S.  C.)  382—582,  587,  740,  758. 


L. 

Labar  v.  Taber,  35  Barb.   (N.  Y.)  305 

—388. 
La    Barge    v.    Union    Elec.    Co.,    138 

Iowa,  691—1088,  1658. 
La  Bourgogne,  144  Fed.  781—2039. 
Labovteaux  v.  Swigart,  103  Ind.  596 

— i46. 
Lacey  v.  Oregon  R.  &  Nav.  Co.   (Or.) 

128  Pac.  999—297,  442. 
Lackawanna   &   B.   R.   Co.   v.   Chene- 
with,   52   Pa.   St.   382—1046,   1103, 
1105,  1567. 
Lackawanna,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Doak,  52 

Pa.  St.  379—1115. 
Lackland  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101 

Mo.  App.  420—832,  852. 
Lacky  v.  McDermott,  8  S.  &  R.  (Pa.) 

500—72,  649. 
La  Crosse  Manufactuters',  etc.,  Union 
v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Int.  Com. 
Rep.  9—1761,  1782. 
Ladd  v.  Foster,  31  Fed.  827—310. 
Ladd   V.    Foster,    12    Sawy,    (U.    S.) 

547—1211,  1581. 
Ladd    V.    New    Bedford    R.    Co.,    119 

Mass.  413—1063,  1118. 
Ladue  v.  Griffith,  25  N.  Y.  364—81, 

83,  773,  775. 
Lafayette,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sims,  27  Ind. 

59—1260. 
Laffiin  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106  N. 

Y.    136—1108,    1125,    1234,    1245. 
Laffrey  v.  Grummond,  74  Mich.  186 — • 

1356,  1531. 
La  Fitte  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
43  La.  Ajin.  34—1108,   1147,   1175, 
1183. 
La  Floridionnc  J.  Bnttgonhach  &  Co., 
Socioto  Aiionviiie  v.  Atlantic  Coast 
Line  1{.  Co..  63   Fla.  208-723. 
Laing  v.  CoMor.  8   Pa.  St.  479—428, 
1715.   1716,   1728,   1131,   1213,   1453, 
1475,   1504.    1513.    1655. 
Laird    v.    Pittsburgii    Tract.   Co.,    166 
Pa.  4—1417. 


:xl 


CXlVUl 


TAULIJ  Oi-    CASEb. 


(Tht>  referoiKi's  are  to  the  pages.) 


I^ko  V.  Cincinnati  Tnc.   P.  li.  Co..   13 

Oliio  C.  C.  4!M— 1047. 
Luko  Kno  A  VV.  K.  Co.  v.  Cotton.  45 

Irul.    App    r,SO—l. '■):?.'».    l().-il. 
Lake  Krie  A:  \V.  R.  Co.  v.  Delonjj,  lOD 

111.  App.  241  — ir>i;{. 
Lake   Kri.-  &    W.   K.  C^o.  v.   Roclv.  43 

Ind.    App.   70—9.34. 
Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Acres,  108 

Inil.  .'")4S— 114{). 
l-ak»>  Krii',  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Arnold  (Ind. 

App.),  5!)  N.  K.  3H4— 1101. 
I>ako  Krie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cliristiaon, 

30  III.   App.  4!tr)— 1711,   1720. 
Lake  Krie,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Condon,   10 

Ind.  App.  536 — 72(5,  7(56. 
I^ako  Eric.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Fix,  88  Ind. 

3S1— 1242,    1418,    1719. 
Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  52 

Ohio   St.   408—385,   395,   399. 
Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holland.  lf)2 

Ind.  406—419,  439,  878,  879. 
Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mavs,  4  Ind. 

App.   113—985,  986,  992,  999.   1394. 
Lake  Erie,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Oakes,   11 

111.   App.  489—777. 
Lake  Erie,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Rosenberg, 

31  111.  App.  47—540.  607,  848. 
Lakeman  v.  Grinnell,  5  Bosw.  (N.  Y.) 

625—188,  584,  587,  596. 
Lake  Shore  &  M.  S.  Ry.  v.  Gibson,  28 

Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  R.  538—8.55. 
Lake  Shore  &  M.  S.  Ry.  Co.  v.  State 

of  Ohio,  173  U.  S.  285-1780. 
Lake  Shore  Elec.   Ry.  v.   Hobart,   32 

Ohio  C.  C.  R.  154—1504. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson, 

39  Ind.  App.  112—796. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Banjos,  47 

Mich.  470—1677. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Bennett, 

89  Ind.  457—326,  370,  455,  822,  878. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bodomcr, 

1.39  111.  .596—958. 
Lake  Sliore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  123 

111.     162—1036,    1043,    1058,    1241, 

1264.  1627. 
Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Brown 

(111.),  14  N.  E.  492—1145. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cincinnati, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Ohio  St.  604—1267. 
Lake  Shore,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Duer,  21 

Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  512—1045. 


Lake  Shon.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v,  Ellaey,  85 

Pu.  St.  283—644. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Foster,  104 

Ind.  293—175,  986,  1347. 
Lake  Sliore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Greenwood, 

79  I'a.  St.  373—1069. 
Lake  Slioie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ilochstim, 

67  111.  App.  514—1376. 
Lake  Sliore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hotchkiss, 

24  0.   C.  C.  431—1037,   1610. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  llodapp,  83 

Pa.  St.  22—559. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v,  Lassen,  12 

111.   App.   659—1345. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Luce,    II 

Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  Rep.  543 — 210. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.   National 

Live-Stock  Bank.  178  111.  506—209. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  National 

Live  Stock   Bank,  59  111.  App.  451 

—215,  227. 
Lake  Sliore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Orndorff, 

55   Ohio   St.   589—1443. 
Lake   Shore,   etc.,   R.  Co.   v.   Perkins, 

25  Mich.  329—126,  785. 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pierce,  47 

Mich.  277—1071,   1227,   1228,   1243, 

1255,    1390. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Prentice, 

147    U.    S.    101—1168,    1184,    1713, 

1723,  1725. 
Lake   Shore,    etc.,   R.   Co.   v.    Rosenz- 

weig,   113   Pa.   St.   519—988,    1070. 

1258,  1453,  1428. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Salzman, 

52  Ohio  St.  558—1248,   1592. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scofield,  2 

Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  R.  .305—716. 
Lake  Shore,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  173 

U.  S.  684—1762. 
Lake   Shore,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Teeters. 

166  Ind.  335—1037. 
Lake   Shore,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Warren, 

3  Wyo.  134—1306,  1372. 
Lake  Shore  Nitro-glycerine  Co.  v.  Il- 
linois  Cent.   R.   Co.,   75    111.   .394— 

568,  575. 
Lake   Steam   Shipping   Co.   v.   Bacon, 

129  Fed.  819-1988. 
Lake  St.  Elev.  R.  Co.  v.  Collins,   118 

111.  App.  270—1278. 
Lake  St.  Elev.  R.  f'o.  v.  Gorraley,  103 

111.  App.  59—997. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


cxlix 


Lake  St.  Elev.  R.  Co.  v.  I»ng  Island 
K.  Co.,  32  Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)   669 
—625. 
Lakin  v.  Oregon  Pac.  R.  Co.,   15  Or. 

220—1132. 
Lallande    v.    His    Creditors,    42    La. 

Ann.  705—219. 
Lam&r  v.  New  York  S.  Nav.  Co.,   16 

Ga.  558 — 117. 
Lamb  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  N.  Y. 
271 — 469,   497,   575,   577,   578,    738, 
746,  759,  770. 
Lamb  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Dalv 

(X.  Y.),   483 — 445. 
Lamb  v.  Caiudeu,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Dalv 

(N.  Y.),  454 — 134,  384,  391. 
Lamb   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    101 

Wis.   138—339. 
Lamb  v.  Parkman,  1  Sprague  ( U.  S. ) , 

343—553. 
Lamb  v.   We.stem  R.   Corp.,   7   Allen 

(Mass.),   98 — HI,   580. 
Lambert   v.    Robinson,    1   Eap.   N.   P. 

119—642. 

Lambeth    v.   North    Carolina   R.    Co., 

66    X.   €.    494—1213,     1233.     1243, 

1254,  1677. 

I.amont  v.   Nashville,  etc.,   R.  Co.,   9 

Heisk    (Tenn.),   58—338,   359,   373. 

La  Motte  v.  Angel.   1   Hawaiian,  237 

—650. 
Lamphear   v.    Buckingham.    33    Conn. 

237—46,  48. 
Larapkin    v.    Louisville,    ate.,   R.    Co., 

160  Ala.  278—1147. 
Lampkins   v.  Vicksburg.  etc.,   R.   Co., 

42  La.  Ann.  997 — 1552. 
I^ampley  v.  Scott,  24  Miss.  52S — 11. 
Lancaster  Mills  v.  Merclianta'  Cotton 

Presa  Co.,  89  Tenn.   1—382,  519. 
Land  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104 

N.  C.  48 — 128.   183. 
Landa   v.   Hoick,    129   Mo.   663—328, 

329,  331. 
Landa  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Mo.), 

31   S.  W.  900—331. 
Ijai.<l('r><  v.  Oarland  Canal  Co.,  52  La. 

-Ann.    146.5—111. 
I^n'ics  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  50  Mo.  346 

—118. 
liandon  v.  Proctor.  39  Vt.  78 — 186. 
Landripan    v.    Brooklvn     Heighta    R. 
Co..    32    App.    Div.  ■  (N.    Y.)     43 — 
1693. 


Landrigau    v.     State,    31     Ark.    50 — 

1142,  1409. 
Landsberg  v.   Dinsmore,   4   Daly    (N. 

Y.),  490—38,  401. 
Lane   v.   Atlantic    Works,    111    Mass. 

136—1567. 
Lane  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112  Mass. 

455 — 6,   380,   408,   411. 
Lane    v.    Chadwick,    146    Mass.    68 — 

262,  651. 
Lane  v.  Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Okl. 

324—1630. 
Lane  v.   Cotton,    1   Ld.   Raym.   646 — 

85,  127. 
Lane  v.  Cotton,   12  Mod.  472—117. 
Lane  v.  Coiton,  1  Salk,  143 — 24. 
Lane  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

5  Lea    (Tenn.),    124—1395,   1423. 
Lane  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,   R.  Co.,   14 

Gray  (JVIass.),  143—644. 
Lane  v.  Smith,  2  Salk,  279—979. 
Lang    v.    Interborough    Rap.    T.    Co., 

134  N.  Y.  Supp.  627—1547. 
Lang  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  154  Pa. 

St.  342—309,  340. 
Lang  V.  Sanger,  76   Wis.  71 — 564. 
Langdon  v.  Howell,  4  Q.  B.  Div.  337 

—1029. 
Langdon  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 
15  N.  Y.  Supp.  255,  60  Hun,  584 — 
718. 
Langdon  v.   New  York,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

9  N.  Y.  Supp.  245—718. 
Langdon  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,   194 

Fed.  486—1808,  1812,   1887. 
Langford  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  142  N.  Y'.  Supp.  336—322. 
Langley  v.  Brown,   1  M.  &,  P.  583 — 

464. 
Langley  v.  Metropolitan   St.  Rv.  Co., 

36  Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.)    804—1488. 
Langworthy    v.    New    Y'ork.    etc.,    R. 
Co.,  2  E.  D.  Smith    (N.  Y.),  195— 
44. 
T^anning   v.    Sussex    R.    Co.,    1    N    J 

L.   J.   21-117,    119,   301. 
I>apham    v.    Atla.s    Insumnce    Co.,   24 

Pick.    (Mass.)    ] — 553. 
L«,pin   V.   North w<'stprii    Elev.   R.   Co 

162  111.  App.  290— 974. 
La  Point.c  v.  Po-rnn  &  M.  R.  Co.,  1;;2 

Mass.   227—1078. 
La    Pointe    v.    Grand    Trunk    R     Co 
26  U.  C.  Q.  B.  479—744,  768. 


TAIJI.E  OF  CASES. 
(Tlio  rcfiMi'iicos  iiro  to  (lie  papjcs. ) 


Ijapoint*'    V.    MiddU-six     1{.    (."o..    Ill 

-Mass.    IS— Kill. 
Laporlo    v.    Wells,    Fargo,    etc.,    Ex- 

prt'ss,  23  Ajip.  Div.    (A.  Y.)    2G7— 

410. 
IxiraU-o   Flour  Mills   Co.   v.   Missouri 

Pai'.    Kv.    Co.,    74    Kan.    SU8— 125, 

143.    074,    704,    18!)3. 
Larimore  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  65 

ilo.  App.   lt)7 — 771). 
LarkJu  v.  Origou  Pac.  R.  Co.,  15  Or. 

220— U)OS. 
Larnod  v.  a-ntral  H.  of  N.  J.  (N.  J.), 

79  Atl.   280—1359. 

Larrison   v.   Chicago,   etc.,    R.   Oo.,    1 

Init.    com.    Rep.    3G9— 1787,    1792, 

1832. 
Larsen   v.    Allan   Line   S.   S.    Co.,   37 

Wash.  550—2038. 
Larsen  v.  Oregon  Short  Line  R.  Co., 

38  Utah,   130—502,   1915,   1917. 
Larson   v.   Boston   Elev.    R.   Co.,   212 

Mass.   262—1210. 
Larson  v.   Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.    (S. 

D.),   141   N.  W.  353—1620. 
Larson  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.,  108 

Minn.  519—1373. 
Lasher  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  27  Misc. 

R.    (N.  Y.)    824—1389,   1425. 
Lasky   v.    Southern    Express    Co.,    92 

Miss.  268—480. 
Lassiter   v.   Western   Union  Tel.   Co., 

89  N.  C.  33&— 92. 
Latch   V.   Rummer   R.    Co.,   27    L.   J. 

Exch.  155—1513. 
Latta   V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co..    172 

Fed.   850—1927. 
Latta  V.  New   Orleans   &  N.   W.  Ry, 

Co.,   131   La.  272—319. 
Laubheim    v.    De    Koninglyke    Nedor- 

landsche    Stoomboot    Maatschappy, 

107  X.  Y.  228-1133. 
Lauchtamacher     v.    Boston    Elevat"d 

Ry.    (Mass.),  100  X.  E.  1008-977. 
Lauglilin  v.  Grand  Rapids  St.  R.  Co., 

80  :\Tich.  154-1560. 

Lauglilin  v.  Grand  Rapids  St.  R.  Co., 
62  Mich.  220—1554. 

Laughlin  Bros.  Co.  v.  Philadflphia 
&  R.   Rv.  Co.,  225   Pa.   540—320. 

Laurel  Cotton  Mills  v.  Gulf  &  S.  J. 
R.   Co..   84   Miss.   339—1848. 

Laurel  Fork.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  West  Vir- 
ginia Tran.'ip.  Co.,  25  W.  Va.  324 — 


Lauiiiit  V.  Vaughin,  30  Vt.  90 — 583» 

;')9!>,  600. 
LauUror    v.    Manliattan    R.    Co.,    128 

Fed.   540—1231,    1608. 
Laveroni   v.   Drury,  S    lOxch.    166 — 75. 
Laviu  V.  ScKvond  Ave.  R.  Co.,  12  App. 

Div.    (N.  Y.)    381—1509. 
Lavis  V.   Wisconsin  Cent.   R.   Co.,   5i 

ill.  App.  636—1487. 
Law  V.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Iowa, 

534—1423. 
Lawrence   v.   Aberdein,   5    B.   &   Aid. 

107—32. 
I^wrence  v.  Green,  70  Cal.  417 — 1488. 
Lawrence   v.    Kaul    Luinln'r    Co.,    171 

Ala.   300—955,   967,    1281. 
Lawrence   v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

36  Conn.  63—425,    1450,   1458. 
Lawrence  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co., 

144  Mass.  1—66. 
Lawrence  v.   Smith,   45   N.   H.  533 — 

330,  332. 
Lawrence  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

84   Wis.   427—927,   793. 
Lawrence   v.   Minturn,    17   How.    (N. 

Y.)    100—219. 
Lawronce  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 

Minn.  390—740,  776. 
Lawrenceburgh,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Mont- 
gomery,  7   Ind.  474—1040,   1567. 
Lawshe   v.   Tacoma   R.   Co.    (Wash.), 

70  Pac.  118—1418. 
Lajvreon   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   64 

Wis.  447—1037,   1038,   1454. 
Lawson   v.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   64 

Wis.  455—463,   1460. 
Lawson  v.   Connolly    (Mich.),   141   X. 

W.  623—114. 
Lax  V.  Forty-Second  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

16  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  448—1648. 
Lay  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  157  Mo. 

App.   467—840.   844. 
Lay  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  68  Wash. 

33—1396. 
Layne  v.  Chesapeake  &  O.  Rv.  Co.,  66 

W.  Va.  607—1151,  1169. 
Lavng    V.    Stewart,     1     Watts    &    S. 

(Pa.)    222—672. 
Lazer    v.    Chicago    City    R.    Co.,    152 

111.  App.  319-1496."^ 
L.    Craddock   &    Co.   v.   Wells,    Fargo 

Co.  Express    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),   125 

S.  W.  50-129.  651. 
Leacli   V.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   89 

ITun    (X.  Y.),   377—132. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


cli 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Leader   v.   Northern    R.    Co.,    3    Out. 

Rep.  92—268,  583. 
Leahey  v.  Ca»s  Ave.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97 

Mo.  165—1559. 
Leas  V.  Quincy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  157  Mo. 

App.  455—442,  892. 
Leasum  v.  Green   Bay  &  W.  R.   Co., 

138   Wis.  593—1579. 
Leavenworth   Elec.   R.   Co.  v.  Cusick, 

60  Kan.  590—1153,  1239. 
Leavenworth,  etc.,  11.  Co.  v.  Maris,  16 

Kan.   333-385,   391,   394,   455. 
Le    Barge    v.    Union    Elec.    Co.,    138 

Iowa,  G91— 1088,   1658. 
Le  Barron  v.  East  Boston  F.  Co.,  11 
Allen    (Mass.),  312—59,  945,   1115. 
Lebeau  v.  General  Steam  Xav.  Co.,  L. 

R.  8  C.  P.  88—526. 
Le    Blanc   v.    Sweet,    107    La.    355 — 

1215. 
Lo  Blanche  v.  London,  etc..  R.  Co.,  1 

C.  P.  Div.  286—1259,   1704. 
Le   Blanche   v.   London,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

24  W.  R.   808—1261. 
Lebov   V.    Consolidated    Ry.   Co.,    203 

Mass.  380—1020. 
Jjftbreuz  v.   Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  240 

Pa.   495—1606. 
Leclaire  v.  Tacoma  Ry.  &  P.  Co.,  62 

Wash.  157—998. 
Ijd  Dean  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  19 

Idaho,  711—1205,   1537. 
Jjee  V.   Barreda.    16   Md.   190—661. 
Lee  V.  Boston  Elev.  R.  Co.,  182  Mass. 

454—1003. 
Ivoe  V.  Bnrgoss,  9  Bush.   (Ky.)   652— 

108,  109,  110. 
I^e  V.  Elizabeth   P.  &   C.  J.  Ry.  Co. 

(N.  J.),  55  Atl.   106—1681. 
Lee  V.  Fidelity  Storage  &  T.  Co.,  51 

Wash.  208—82,  283. 
Jjee  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  36  U.  C. 

Q.  B.  350—1300. 
Tice  V.  Knapp,   155  Mo.  610—103. 
Lee  V.  Marsh,  43  Barb.    (N.  Y.)    102 

—847. 
Lee    V.    Publisher,    George    Knapp    & 

Co.,   55   :Mo.   App.   390—1095. 
Lee  V.  Ralfiph.  etc..  R.  Co.,  72  N.  C. 

236—419,  822,  927. 
Lee  V.  Rhode  Island  Co.    (R.   I.),  68 

Atl.  475—1623. 
Lee  V.   Salter.   Hill   &   D.,   Supp.    (N. 
Y.)    103-050,  661,  079. 


Lee  &  Co.  v.   St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

136  N.  C.  533—622. 
Leech  v.  Baldwin,  5  Watts  (Pa.),  448 

— 34,  163,  650,  681. 
Lees   V.   Lancashire,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    18 

Sol.  Jour.  G2S— 161. 
Leeson  v.  Holt,   1   Stark,  286 — 463. 
Lefebure    v.    American    Express    Co. 

(Iowa),  139  X.  W.  1117—894. 
Legge  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  197 

Mass.  88-1010. 
Leggett   V.   Western  New   York,   etc., 

R.  Co.,  143  Pa.  St.  39—1598,  1677, 

1679. 
Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Greiner,  113 

Pa.  St.  600—1627. 
Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania, 

145   U.   S. '192—1858. 
Lehigh  Valley  R-  Co.  v.  Rainey,  112 

Fed.  487—1785. 
Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

204  Fed.  986  (U.  S.  Com.  Ct.)   1878 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

204  Fed.  5^6—1842. 
Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

188  Fed.  879—1840,  1977. 
Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

187  Fed.  1006- -809,  1984. 
Lehigh    Valley   Transp.   Co.   f.   Pitts- 
burg, etc..  'Co.,  92   111.  App.  628 — 

743. 
Lehigh   Valley   Transp.   Co.    v.    Post 

Sugar  Co.,   128  HI.  App.  600—131. 
Lehman  v.  Louisiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

La.  Ann.  705—1225,  1232,  1241. 
Lehman  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Int. 

Com.  R.  44—1709. 
Lehmann  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Int. 

Com.  R.  700—1827,  1833. 
Lehner   v.   Metropolitan    St.    Ry.    Co., 

110  Mo.  App.  215—1619. 
Lehner  v.  Pittsburg  Rys.  Co.,  223  Pa. 

208- 15Sfi. 
Lchr  v.  Steinway,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  118  N. 

Y.  556— 1198.* 
Leigh  v.  :\Iobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Ala. 

16.5—646. 
Leigh   v.  Smith.   1  C.  &  P.  640—182. 
Leinkauf    v.    Ivombard,    A.    &    Co..    12 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    302—535. 
Leisv  v.  Hardin,  135  U.  S.  106—1749, 

1852. 
Lf'land  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  N, 

W.  390—410. 


olii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


(Tlif  rcforoni-cs  arc  U>  the  padres.) 


l.v]o\\[>   V.    Port  of   Mobilf,    li>7    U.   S. 

r.40— 1744. 
LomU'rk  v.  Jarvis  Terminal  C".  S.  Co., 

GO   X.  .1.   Kq.   781— G44. 
IjCIiutv    v.    Crt'iit    Nortliorn    Uv.    Co., 

S3   Minn.  47— !HiO,  9til,   lOO.V,   lOOG. 
Lonikt'    V.    Chicnpo,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    39 

Wis.  440— ;$sr),  a!)i.  ;t!):}.  :{!)4. 

Lomon  V.  Chanslor.  f!S  Mo.  340—944, 

94"),  1031,  10:!3.  1-213.  12(i0,  1505. 
Lemon  v.  Crand  Kupids.  etc.,  R.  Co., 

11  Dot.  L.  N.  151  —  1232. 
Lemon  v.  I'nllnian  Palace  Car  Co.,  52 

Fed.  262—03.  G6. 
Lenient  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 

Fed.  920—327.  320. 
Lemont    v.   Washington,   etc.,  R.   Co., 

1  Mackey  (D.  C),  180—1140,  1194, 

1407. 
Lenekliart  v.    Cooper,   3   Ring.   N.   C. 

99—042. 
Lennon   v.   Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.,    127 

Iowa,  431—1347. 
Lent  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

120    N.    Y.    460,    467—1225,    1231, 

1576,  1061,  1662. 
Leo  V.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Minn. 

438—778. 
Leonard  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 

57    App.   Div.    (N.   Y.)    125—1108, 

1116,    1217. 
Leonard  v.  Brooklyn  H.  R.  Co..  7  Am. 

Electl.  Cas.  58.3—1582. 
Leonard   y.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    57 

Mo.   App.   300—343. 
Leonard   v.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   54 

Mo.   App.  29.3—345,   346,   371,   436, 

439,   456,  484.   785. 
Leonard  y.  Columbia  Steam  Nav.  Co., 

84  N.  Y.  48—390. 
Leonard    y.    Fitchburg    R.    Co.,     143 

Mass.  307—153,  584,  794. 
Leonard   y.   Hcndrickson,    18    Pa.    St. 

40—27,  57,  574. 
Leonard  y.  New  York,  etc.,  Teleg.  Co., 

41   N.  Y.   544.  571—87,  89. 
Leonard  y.  Southern   Pac.  R.  Co.,  21 

Or.  555—1554. 
Leonard  y.  Tidd,  3  Mete.   (Mass.)  6— 

284. 
Lepford  y.   Charlotte,   etc.,   R.   Co..   7 

Rich  L.    (S.  C.)    409—318. 
Le   Sage   v.  Great  Western   R.   Co.,    1 

Daly   (N.  Y.),  306—739,  751. 
Losan  V.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  77  Me. 

85-1542. 


Leainskv  v.  Great  Western  Dispatch, 

13    JVio.    App.    575—259,    400,    598, 

733. 
Leslie   V.    Atchison,   etc.,    Ry.   Co.,    82 

Kan.  152—1470,  1575. 
T>eslie  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Mo. 

50—1213,  1202,  1077,  1078. 
Lessard  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.  Co.,  69  N. 

H.  648—1365. 
Lesser  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  Ry.  Co.,  83 

Mo.  App.  326—1077. 
lister   y.    Delaware,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   92 

Ihm,  342—234,  271,  273,  282. 
Letter    y.    Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    73 

Hun   (N.  Y.),  308—214. 
Letts  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  131  IMo.  App. 

270—801,  880. 
Letts-Spencer  Grocer  Co.  y.  Missouri 

Pac.  Ry.   Co.,   138  Mo.   App.   352— 

332. 
Leu  y.  St.  Louis  Tr.  Co.   (Mo.  App.), 

80  S.  W.  273,  86  S.  W.  137—1609, 

1620. 
Levan  y.  Atlantic  Coast  L.  R.  Co.,  8G 

S.  C.  51.3—1417. 
Levensohn   y.   Cunard   S.   S.   Co.,    162 

111.  App.  421—2042. 
Leveret  y.   Shreveport  Belt   Line   Co. 

(La.),  34  So.  579—1081,  1117,  1125, 

1C20,   1672,   1602. 
Levering  v.  Union  Transp.,  etc.,  Co., 

42  Mo.  88—410,  430,  457. 
Levi   y.   Lynn,   etc.,   R.  Co.,   11    Allen 

(Mass.)*,  300—50. 
Levi    y.    Missouri,    etc..    R.    Co.     (Mo. 

App.),  138  S.  W.  699—1356. 
Levi   y.   Missouri,    etc.,   Ry.   Co.,    157 

Mo.  App.  530—1379. 
Levien  v.  W^ebb,  30  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.) 

196—68. 
Levin  v.  Second  Ave.  Tract.  Co.,  201 

Pa.   St.  58-1590. 
Levin    v.    Philadelphia   &    R.    R.    Co., 

228  Pa.  St.  206-1481. 
Lcvine  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.   Co.,    134 

App.  Div.  006— 149S. 
Levins  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  183 

Mass.  175—1205. 
Levois  V.  Gale,  17  La.  Ann.  302—527. 
Levy   y.    Campbell    (Tex.),    19    S.    W. 

4.38—1214.  1216,  1565. 
Levy  y.  Pontchartrain  R.  Co.,  23  La. 

Ann.  477—409. 
Levy  v.  Southern  Express  Co.,  4  S.  C. 

2:!4— 410,   427,   772. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


cliii 


Levy  T.   Weir,   38  Misc.   R.    (N.   Y.) 

361—197,  286. 
Lewark   v.   Norfolk,  etc.,   R.   Co.    (N. 

C),  49  S.  E.  882—619. 
Lewis    V.    Delaware,   etc..    Canal    Co., 

145  N.  Y.  508—1242. 
Lewis  V.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Mich. 

55—1710. 
Lewis  V.  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  111. 

281—214. 
Lewis  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  5  H. 

&   N.  8G7— 452,  482,   1464. 
Lewis   V.   Great   Western    R.    Co.,   47 

L.  J.  Q.  B.  Div.  131—406. 
Lewis   V.    Great   Western    R.    Co.,   26 

W.  R.  255—459. 
Lewis  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  3  Q. 

B.  Div.  195—464. 
Lewis  V.  Houston  Elec.  R.  Co.  (Tex.), 

88  S.  W.  489—974. 
Lewis  V.  Houston  Electric  Co.,  39  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  625—983. 
Lewis  V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  L.  J. 

Q.  B.  8—1233. 
Lewis  V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Q.  B. 

66—1235. 
Li'wis  V.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co..   135 

Ky.  361—200. 
Lewis   V.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   13 

Ky.  Law   Rep.    144 — 1356. 
Lewis  V.  Ludwich,  6   Coldw.    (Tenn.) 

368—27,  324. 
Lewis  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  49 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    330—991. 
Lewis  V.  New  York  Sleeping  Car  Co., 

143  Mass.  267—04,  66,  67.  1452. 
Lewis  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co..  220  Pa. 

317—1046. 
Ivcwis  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,   71   N. 

J.  L.  339—8.30,  830,  876. 
I>€wis  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  70  N. 

J.  L.  132—904. 
Lewis  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.    ( N.  J. 

Sup.),  56  Atf.  12S— 815. 
Lewis   V.    Itichniond,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   25 

S.  C.  249-782. 
Lewis  V.  Van  Horn,  24  Misc.   11.    (N. 

Y.)   765—186. 
Lewis  V.   Western   R.  Corp.,   11    Mete. 

(.Mass.)    509—205.  207,  244. 
I^wisolin  V.  National   Steamsliip  Co., 

56  Fed.  602—451. 
Lewke  v.  Dry    Dock.   «•!<■.,   R.   Co.,   46 

Hun    (N.  Y.)    2.S.'J— 1560. 


Lewyt  V.   Dry   Dock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 

Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    496—994. 
Lexington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lyons,  104 

Ky.  28—1417. 
Lexington  Ry.  Co.  v.  Coznie,  23  Ky. 

L.  Rep.   1137—1721. 
Lfxington  Ry.  Co.  v.  Herring,  29  Ky. 

Law   Rep.   794—1022. 
Lexington  Ry.  Co.  v.  Lowe,   143  Ky. 

339—1667. 
Leyh  v.  Newburgh  Elec.  Ry.  Co.,  168 

N.  Y.  667—1092. 
Leyser   v.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    138 

:\ro.  App.  34—1421.  1432. 
Lezinsky  v.   Metropolitan   St.   R.   Co., 

88  Fed.  437-1184. 
Libbey  v.  Cent.  R.  Co.,  85   Me.   34 — 

1124. 
Libby  v.  Ingalls,  124  Mass.  503 — 225, 

226. 
Libby  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  85  Me. 

34—314,    1049,    1117,    1123,    1187, 

1212. 
Libby  v.   St.   Louis,  etc.,   R.  Co.,   137 

Mo.   App.  276—443,  597,   822,   841, 

884. 
Lickbarrow   v.   Mason,    6   East,   21 — 

649. 
Lickbarrow   v.   Mason,   2   T.   R    63 — 

224. 
Liefert  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  57   S.  W.  899—278. 
Light   V.    Detroit    &   M.    R.    Co.,    165 

Mich.   433—1399. 
Lightfoot   V.    St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

126  Mo.  App.  532—311,  321,  335. 
Ligon  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  3  Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cas  ,  §  1—619. 
Lillard  v.  Mitchell,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

Cas.,  §  457—541. 
Lillis  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co..  64  Mo. 

464—992,    1025,    1390,    1429. 
Lillstrom    v.    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co, 

(Minn.),  20  L.  R.  A.  587—1517. 
Liniburgcr  v.  Westcott,  49  Barb.    (N 

Y.)    28.3-1333,   1451.  1454. 
Lin   V.   Terre   Haute,   etc.,    R.   Co.,    10 

Mo.  App.  12.5—1350.  1361.  1370. 
Lincoln  v.  Walker,  18  Neb.  247 — 1544 

1545,  1546. 
Lincoln  Board  of  Trade  v.  Burlington, 

etc..  R.  Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  Rep.  95 — 

1781,  1797,  1829. 
Lincoln  St.  R.  Co.    v.  Cox,  48  Neb 

807—1509. 


.'liv 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(Tlic  rofiTonoos  are  to  the  pl^ge8.) 


l.imuln    St.    R.    Co.    v.    Mi-CIoHaii,    34 

Nob.  672 — 49.   I'ilf).   1472. 
l.inoeiln    Tout  &   Awniiip   C^>.   v.   Mis- 
souri  Vac.   Hy.   Co.,  86  Neb.   338— 

534. 
l.iiu'dln    Tniition     Co.    v.    Brookover 

(Neb.).    100   N.   W.   168— If).'??), 
him-oln    Tnu'tion    Co.    v.    llflk-r,    72 

Nob.   127—40,   147r>. 
Lindcnbaura  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

197  Mass.  314—1409. 
Lindley  v.  Ridmiond.  cto..  R.  Co.,  88 

N.  C.  547— r>OS.  618,  754,  778. 
Lindsay   v.    Central    R.,   etc.,   Co.,    46 

Ga.  47—1154.  1552. 
Lindsav  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  141  Mich. 

204—1431. 
Liiidsev   V.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   64 

Iowa,  407—1637. 
Lindsov  v.  Maine  S.  S.  Co.,  88  N.  Y. 

Supp.  371—2039. 
Lindsey   v.   Pennsylvania   R.   Co.,    26 

App.  D.  C.  50.3—1049.  10.50,  1111. 
Lindslev  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  41 

]\[inn.  539—905. 
Lindsley  v.    Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   3G 

Minn.   539—578,  822.  907. 
Lippman   v.   Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.,   2 

Int.     Com.     Rep.    414—1791,    1798, 

1828. 
Lippman  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co..  127 

App.  Div.   187—249. 
Liscomb  v.  New  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

6  Lans.   (N.  Y.)   75—1231. 
Lister  v.  Lancashire  &.  Y.  Ry.,  73  L. 

J.  K.  B.   3S.->— 336. 
Litchfield  &  M.  Ry.  Co.  v.  People,  22 

111.  242—1135. 
Litt  V.  Cowley,  7  Taunt.  169—499. 
Litt  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  131  Mo.  App. 

270—902. 
Litt  V.  Waba«h  R.  Co.,  50  App.  Div. 

(N.  Y.)    550— ,593. 
little  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co..  66  Me. 

21^9 — 428.   522,   527.   570.  582. 
Little  V.  Dusenberry,  46  N.  J.  L.  614 

—46. 
Little  y.  Fargo.  43  Hun   (N.  Y.),  233 

—327,   341.   343,   369,  769. 
Little   V.    Haekett,    116   U.    S.    366— 

1269. 
Little  V.  Riley,  43  N.  H.  9—451. 
Littleiohn    v.'  Fitchburg   R.    Co.,    148 

Mass.  478—996. 


ttlcjolin  v.  .Itmes,  2  McMull.  (S.  C.) 
:iti5— 10,   11,  20,  60. 
ttlc    Miami,    etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Wash- 
hum.  22   Oiiio  St.  324—752. 
ttle  Miami   R.  Co.,  v.  Wetmore,   19 
Oiiio   SI.   110—1150,    1170. 
ttle    Rock    V.    East   Tennessee,    etc., 
R.  Co.,  3  Int.  Com.  C.  Rep.  1—729, 
1825. 

ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Atkins,  46 
Ark.   423—1676,    1677. 
ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bruce,  55 
Ark.  ()5— 268. 
ttlc  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cavenesse, 

48  Ark.   106—1607,   1688. 

ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Conatser, 

61   Ark.  560—154,  624. 

ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Corcoran, 

40  Ark.  375—575. 

ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cravens, 

57  Ark.   112—439,  468. 

ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Daniels, 

49  Ark.  352—781. 

ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dean,  43 
Ark.  529—1015,   1028. 
ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  y.  East  Ten- 
nessee, etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Fed.  771 — 

1800.  1824. 

ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eubanks, 

48  Ark.  460—439. 

ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Glidewell, 

39  Ark.  487-4.'],  233. 

ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  y.  Hanniford, 

49  Ark.  291—268,  270. 

ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harper,  44 

Ark.  208—575. 

ttle   Rock,   etc.,   R.   Co.   y.   Hunter, 

42    Ark.    200—83,    171,    375,    1348, 

1353,    1531. 

ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lawton,  55 

Ark.  428—1162,  1284. 

ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miles.  40 

Ark.  298-1036,  1211,  1227,  1500, 

1576.  1626. 

ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  y.  Odom,  63 

Ark.  .326—281,  760.  781,  924. 

ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Record,  74 

Ark.   12.5—1330,   1361. 

ttle  Rock,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.   St.  TvOiiis 

Southwestern  R.  Co.,  63  Fed.  775— 

729,  1759,  1795,  1820,  1823,  1S26. 

ttle  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Fed.  408—734.  1795, 

1801,  1823,  1824. 


TABLE  OF  CASKS. 


clv 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis 

R.  Co.,  41   Fed.  559—729.   1826. 
Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Talbot,  39 

Ark.  ,52.3—418,  576.  579,   1457. 
Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walker,  64 

Ark.    144—1183. 
Little  Rock,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.  v.  Davis,  41 

Ark.  79—87. 
Little  Rock  Traction  &  E.  Co.  v.  Nel- 
son.   66    Ark.    494—970.    996,    1248, 

1564.    1589. 
Littman  v.  Drv  Dock.  etc..  R.  Co.,  6 

Mi.sc.  Rep.    ('X.  Y.)    34—1647. 
Liverpool,  etc..  Steam  Co.  v.  Ins.  Co. 

of  N.  A..  129  U.  S.  464—547. 
Liverpool,  etc..   Steam  Co.  v.  Phoenix 

Ins.    Co.,    129    U.    S.    397—75,    307, 

448.  450.  451,  454,  547,  1772,  1449, 

1451. 
Live  Stock  Co.  v.  Kansas  Citv,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  100  Mo.  App.  674—908. 
Livingston  v.  Miller,  48  Hun   (X.  Y. ) 

232—328. 
Livingston   v.   New   York    Cent.,   etc., 

R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y.  631—354,  747,  774. 
Livingston   v.   New   York   Cent.,   etc., 

R.   Co.,  5  Hun    (N.  Y.),  562—359, 

596. 
Llovd    v.    Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    53 

Mo.   509-1677. 
Lloyd  V.  Haugh  &  Meenan  Storage  & 

Transfer  Co.,  223  Pa.  148—20. 
Lloyd   V.   Waterford,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   15 

Ir.  C.  L.  R.  37—465. 
Lobsenz  v.  New  York   Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,   72   App.   Div.    (N.   Y.)    181— 

1225. 
Lochner  v.  New  York,  25  S.  Ct.  539 — 

1762. 
Locke  v.  Sioux  City,  etc..  R.  Co.,  46 

Iowa,  109—1082. 
Lockliart  v.  Lichtenthaler.  46  Pa.  151 

—  1269. 
Lock-wood  V.  Boston  Elev.  R.  Co..  200 

Mass.  537-982.   1623. 
Lockwood   V.   Manhattan,   etc..   Ware- 
house Co.,  28  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)   68 

—569. 
Loeb  V.  Wabash   R.  Co.    (Mo.  App.), 

85  S.  W.   118—238. 
Loeffler    v.     Keokuk     Northern     Line 

Packet  Co.,   7    Mo.    App.    18.5—279, 

611. 
Loeser    v.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.,    94 

Wis.  571— 878,  889,  896. 


Loewenberg  v.  Arkansas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

56  Ark.  439—269,  637,  675. 
Loftus  V.  Union   Ferry  Co.,  84  N.  Y. 

455—549.  1115,  1124,  1231,  1261. 
Logan    V.    Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    77 

Mo.  603—1227,  1410. 
Losan  V.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  183 

Mo.  582—1501. 
Logan   V.   Mobile   Trade   Co..   46   Ala. 

514—430. 
Logan    V.    Pontchartrain    R.    Co.,    11 

Rob.   (La.)  24—427. 
Losran   Coal    Co.   v.   Pennsvlvania   R. 

Co.,  154  Fed.  497—1821.' 
Logwood  V.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 

Fed.  318—1143. 
Lomas  v.  New  York  Citv  Rv.  Co.,  188 

N.  Y.  628—1524. 
London  &  L.   Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Rome, 

etc.,   R.    Co.,    144   N.   Y.   200—168, 

171,  172,  175.  192,  434. 
London  &   L.  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Rome, 

etc..  R.  Co.,  68  Hun   (N.  Y.)   598— 

31,  377. 
London,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bartlett,  7  H. 

&  N.  400—242,  244,  452. 
Long   v.    Lehigh    Vallev   R.    Co.,    130 

Fed.  870—1053.   1466. 
Long  V.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51   Ala. 

512—651. 
Long  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  50  N. 

Y.  76 — 430. 
Long  V.  Pennsvlvania  R.  Co.,  147  Pa. 

St.  343—311. 
Loom  is  V.  Jewett,  35  Hun  (N.  Y.)  313 

—1428. 
Loomis  V.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  203 

N.  Y.  312—140. 
Loomis   V.   Wabash,   etc.,    R.   Co.,    17 

Mo.  App.  340—238,  256,  538. 
Loraine  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  205 

Pa.  132—125. 
Lord   v.   Jlaine   Central   R.    Co.,    105 

Me.   255—176,    185,    188,   609. 
Lord  V.  Midland  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  2  C.  P. 

339—6.  465. 
Lord  V.  Steamship  Co.,  102  U.  S.  54— 

1775. 
Lorickio   v.    Brooklyn   H.   R.   Co.,   44 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   628—1.543. 
Lorimer  v.  St.  Paul  City  R.  Co.    48 

Minn.    .391—1114. 
T.oring  v.  Mulcahv,  3  Allen    (Mass.), 

575—284. 


clvi 


TABLi;  OF  CASKS. 
(Tlio  rt'fiTiiu'os  ;iif  U>  the  piv^i'S-) 


Losoe   V.    W'atcrx  liot    Tunip.,    cti-..    U. 

Co..  ()3  llun   (N.  Y.)   404— ltl4r.. 
Losie  V.    n.Imviiro  &   H.   Co..    12(1   N. 

Y.  Supp.  S71.  142  App.  Div.  214— 

14^0. 
Lothrop   V.    .\ilnms.    l".*?    Mass.   471 — 

1184. 
Lotspoioli    V.    Central    Uailnunl.    etc., 

Co.,  7:i  Ala.  3(K>— Ifll.  720.  720.743. 
Lott  V.  Now  Orliaiis  City,  vU:,  It.  Co., 

37  La.  AiiM.  337— 11S:». 
Lottery   Case.    1S8   U.    !S.   321—1733, 

173.1. 
Loud  V.  South  Carolina,  e(e..  R.  Co., 

4  Int.  Com.  Rep.  20.') — 17S0. 

Loud  V.  South  Caroli)ia.  etc.,  R.  Co., 

5  Int.  C.>m.  C.  Rep.  52!)— 17S3. 
Loudon  V.  Eijvhth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  102  N. 

Y'.   3S0— 1474.    1494. 
Lough  V.  Outerbridse.  143  N.  Y.  271 

—10.   101. 
Loush  V.  Outerbridge,  GG  Ilun  (N.  Y.) 

103—717. 
Louisiana.  Nat.    Bank   v.   Laveille,   52 

Mo.  3S0— 229. 
Louisiana   Rv.  &  Nav.   Co.   v.  Holly, 

127   La.   61.-)— 684,   1882. 
Louisville  &  A.  R.   Co.   v.  Bennett  & 

^Morgan.    25   Ky.   Law   Rep.    834 — 

919.' 
Louisville  &  C.  Packet  Co.  v.  Rogers, 

20  Ind.  App.  594—2015. 
Louisville    &    E.    M.    Co.    v.    Barnes* 

Adni'r.  25  Kv.  L.  Rep.  2030-1192. 
Louisville  &  E."  R.  Co.  v.  McXally,  31 

Kv.  Law  Rep.  1257—1140. 
Louisville  &  E.  R.  Co.  v.  Vincent,  29 

Ky.  Law  Rep.  1049—1159. 
Louisville  &  J.  F.  Co.  v.  Nolan,   135 

Ind.  60-1134. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,   152 

Kv.   14.5— 183G,  18S2. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Arnold,  22 

Ky.  Law  Rep.   199—851. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Bay's  Adm'r, 

142  Ky.  400—1000. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Behlmer,  175 

U.   S.  648—1828.   1955. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Berg,  17  Ky. 

L.  R.  1105 — 1661. 
Louisville  &  N.   R.  Co.  v.   Bernheim, 

113  Ala.  489—427. 
Lnuisville   &  N.   R.   Co.  v.   l'.<T'y.  58 
Fla.  300—1075. 


Louisville   &    N.    R.    Co.   v.   Brecken- 

ridu'o.  99  Ky.  1—144."). 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Brewer,  147 

Kv.   106-1142,  1195. 
Louisville    &    N.    R.    Co.    v.    Britton 

(Ala.).  39  So.  585—276. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Brownlee,  77 

Kv.  590—408. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Burns  (Ga.) 

70  S.  E.  1112—911. 
Louisville   &   N.   R.   Co.   v.   Campbell 

(Kv.).   122  S.  W.  848— 162'). 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Cecil,   145 

Ky.  271—822,  846. 
Louisville    &    N.    R.    Co.    v.    Central 

Stockvards  Co.,  30  Ky.  Law  Rep. 

18—909, 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Church,  155 

Ala.  329—1515. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Cooper,  21 

Ky.  Law  Rep.  1644—936. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Coquillard 

\\agon  Works,  Assignees,   147   Ky. 

530—1883. 
Louisville  &   N.   R.   Co.  v.   Cornelius 

(Ala.  App.),  60  So.  740—1.539. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Cottengin, 

31  Ky.   Law   Rep.   871—994.    1396, 
1433. 

Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Cottengin 
(Ky.),   119  S.  W.  751—1396. 

Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Crunk,  119 
Ind.  542—1284. 

Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Daugherty, 

32  Ky.  L.  R.  1392— 1G05. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Dcason,  29 

Ky.  L.  R.  1259—1597. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.   Dickinson, 

91   Fed.  705—18.34,   1884. 
Louisville    &    N.    R.    Co.    v.    Dilbura 

(Ala.),  59  So.  438—1682. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.   Co.  v.  Donaldson, 

19  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1384--!  178. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Dyer  (Ky.), 

153   S.  W.   194—1611. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Ellis,  97  Ky. 

330—1405. 
Louisville    &    N.    R.    Co.    v.    Empire 

State    Chem.    Co.,    189    Fed.    174— 

700. 
Louisville   &   N.   R.   Co.   v.   Farmers' 

&,  Drovors'  Live  Stflck  Commission 

Co.,    107   Kv.   53—918.   921. 
LouisviLe  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Farmers'  & 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


clvii 


Drovers'    Live    Stock     Commission 

Firm,  22  Ky.  Law   Rep.   iLioS — 914. 
Louisville  &  X.   K.   Co.  v.  Forrest,   6 

Ga.  App.  7(J6 — 'J56,  1432. 
Louisville   &,  N.    R.   Co.   v.   Fulgham, 

91  Ala.  555—669. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  F.  W.  Cook 

Brewing  Co.,'  172   Fed.   117—302. 
Louisville   &,   N.   R.   Co.   v.   Gay,    143 

Ky.  56—388. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Gidliv,  119 

Ala.   523—408. 
Louisville    &    N.    R.    Co.    v.    Glasgow 

(Ala.),   60   So.    103—982,    1603. 
Louisville    &    N.    R.    Co.    v.    .Godwin 

(Ala.),   62   So.  768— 
Louisville    &    N.    R.    Co.    v.    Gormley, 

33   Ky.  Law  Rep.  802—827,  863. 
Louisville   &,    X.    R.    Co.    v.    Gormley 

(Ky.),  121  S.  W.  965—802. 
Loiiissille   &   X.   R.    CV).    v.   Hale,    19 

Ky.  Law  Rep.  1651—1249. 
Louisville  &  X.  R.  Co.  v.  Harmon,  23 

Ky.  Law  Rep.  871 — 951. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Higdon,  149 

Ky.  321—120,  302,  656,  705,  706. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.   Co.  v.  Hull,    113 

Ky.  561—615. 
Louisville  at  N.   R.   Co.  v.   Interstate 

Commerce     Commission,    195    Fed. 

541—1843. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.   Co.  v.   Jacob,   70 

Ark.  401—903. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Jordan,  112 

Ky.   Law   Rep.   473—1439. 
Ix)uisville  &  X.  R.  Co.  v.  Rico,  22  Kv. 

L.  Rep.   1462—586. 
Ix)uisville  &  X.  R.  Co.  v.  Lawler,  32 

Ky.  Law   Rep.  994—1626. 
Louisville  &  X.  R.  Co.  v.  Lawson,  88 

Ky.  496—276. 
l/ouisville   &   X.    Ry.   Co.   v.   Magnus 

Co.,  32  Ohio  C.  C.  R.  682—672. 
Ivouisville   &  X.    R.   Co.   v.   Mason,   4 

Ala.  App.  353—1393,   1546. 
Ijouisville  &  N.  R.   Co.  v.  McKenzie, 

5  Ala.  App.  605—317. 
LouiRvillo  &  N.   R.  Co.   v.  McMullen, 

5  Ala.  App.  662-650,  683,  714. 
LonisvilU'  &  X^.   R.   Co.  v.  Meyer,  78 

Ala.  597—291,  446. 
lyonisville  &  X.  R.   Oo,  v.  Mink,   120 

Ky.  327—621. 
Jxinisvillo   ft,  X.   R.    Co.   v.   Mink,    31 

Ky.   r.aw  Rep.  83.3—544. 


Louisville    Southern    R.    Co.    v.    Min- 

ogm,     90     Ky.     369—1212,      1267, 

1722,  1729 
Louisville  &  X.  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,   150 

Ky.  692-1682. 
Louisville   &  X.   R.   Co.   v.   Moss,    13 

Ky.  L.  R.  684—1424. 
Louisville  &  X.  R.  Co.  v.  Motley,  219 

C.   S.  467—1775,   1835. 
Louisville   &   X.    R.    Co.   v.   Odil,    96 

Tenn.    (12  Pickle)    61—240. 
Ix)uisville  &  X.   R.  Co.  v.   Payne,  31 

Ky.  Law  R.p.  1175—1671. 
Louisville  &  X.  R.  Co.  v.  Pedigo,  129 

Ky.  661—786. 
Loui'sville  &  X.  R.  Co.  v.  Plunkett,  6 

Ga.    App.    684—1274,    1699. 
Louisville  &  X.  R.  Co.  v.  Rash  &  Co., 

141  Ky.  25—854 
Louisville  &   X.   R.    Co.   v.   R:iv,    101 

Tenn.    1—68. 
Louisville    &   N.    R.    Co.    v.    Renfro's 

Adm'r,   149  Ky.  590—1159. 
Louisville   &   X.   R.    Co.    v.   Ritter,    2 

Ky.  Law  Rep.  385 — 1105. 
Louisville  &  X.   R.   Oo.  v.   Robinson, 

18  Ky.  Law  Rep.  275 — 605. 
Louisville  &  X.  R.  Co.  v.   Scott,  219 

U.  S.  209—1902,  1911,  1912. 
Louisville  &  X.  R.  Co.  v.   Scott,   133 

Ky.   724—1911,   1926.   1927. 
Louisville    &    X.    R.    Co.    v.    Sntter's 

Axlm'r,   138  Ky.  476—1408,   1430. 
Louisville   &   X.   R.    Co.   v.   Shepherd 

(Ala.   App.),  61   So.   14—902. 
Louisvilly  &  X.  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,   135 

Ky.  462—1697. 
Loui.sville  &  X.  R.  Oo.  v.  Smith,  123 

Tenn.  678—893. 
Louisvilh"  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Smitha,  143 

Ala.  686—818. 
Louisville   &  N.   R.   Co.   v.    Southern 

Flour  &  G.  Co.,   136  Ga.  538—054. 
Ix)uisvine  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Stih-s,  Cad- 
die   &    Stiles,    133    Ky.    780— 3S5, 

807,  829,  834. 
Louisville  &  X.  R.  Co.  v.  Tharpe,   11 

('■11.  App.  465 — 512. 
Ix)uisville  &  X.  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson, 

144  Ky.  70.5—799,  803. 
Tx)uisvill<<    &    X.    R.    Co.    v.    United 

States.  207  F(''d.  591  —  1901. 
Ixniisville    &    X.     R.    Co.    v.    United 

S(at-<"<,    197   Fed.  58—1807. 
l/>uisvilie    &    X.    R,    Co.     v.     United 


civiii 


■J  AliLK  Ob'  CASES. 


('riu'  iffon-iK'i's  are  U>  tlic  pajj^^a.) 


st«t»'<.  :ii»  ct.  CI.   (U.  s.)   4o:)— 

171,  348,  370,  37S. 
Ijouisvillf  &  N.  K.  Lo.  v.  Wiiabl.',  13J 

(la.  .iiil— :>1J. 
LouisvilU-  \    N.    K.    I'o.    v.   Wado,    tlJ 

bill.    i!t7— Ul4J. 
Louisvillo  &  M.   R.  Co.  v.   WarlicKl  & 

Li'e.    I)    Cia.    App.    5.)0 — ;jOO.     883, 

ISIOS.   1!)10.   1917.   192.^. 
Ixiuisville  &  N.  R.  C<i.  v.  WailU'ld,  30 

Ky.    l>a\v   Rop.   352 — 82li. 
IxmisvilU'  &  !N.  R.  Co.  v.  Wathen,  '22 

K\.  Law   Ri'p.  82— !)38. 
Loiiisvilli'  tV    N.   R.   Co.   v.   Woodford, 

152   Ky.  3!»iS— 507.   825,  850. 
Ijouisville  (St  S.  1.  Traction  Co.  v.  VVor- 

ndl.  44  Ind.  App.  480—1528.   1547, 

1586. 
Louisville   Citv   Rv.    Co.   v.   Iludgins, 

.iO   Ky.   Law   Rep.   316—1609. 
Louisville  Citv   R.  Co.   v.  Mercer,   11 

Ky.  Law   Rep.   810—1426.    1437. 
Louisville   Citv  R.   Co.  v.   Weanis.   SO 

Ky.  420— l'il2. 
Louisville,    etc.,    Ferrv    Co.   v.   Nolan. 

135    Ind.    UO— 1187,'  1475,    1504. 
Louisville,  etc..  Pack't  Co.  v.  Bottorff, 

25  Ky.  L.  Rep.   1324—604. 
Louisville,  etc..  Packet  Co.  v.  Rogers, 

20   Ind.   App.   594—228. 
Louisville,   etc..    R.   Co.    v.    Allen,    78 

Ala.  494—1470. 
Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Ballard,  88 

Ky.   159—1721. 
Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Ballard,  85 

Ky.   307-1176,   1721,   1726. 
Ix>uisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.   Barkliouse, 

100  Ala.  543—233,  278. 
Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Behlmer. 

175  U.  S.  648—1787,  1829,  1830. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co,   v.   Bennett   & 

Morgan,  25   Kv.  L.  Rep.   834— S30. 
Louisville,    etc..  "R.    Co.    v.    Bell,    100 

Kv.  203—1037,  1408. 
Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Bell,  13  Ky. 

Law  Rep.  393—309. 
Jjouiaville.   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Bcrrv,   88 

Ky.    222—1557. 
Tx>uisville.   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  Big^T.   66 

Miss.  319—906. 
Tx)uisvire.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.   Bisch,   120 

Tr;d.  .^49— 1242.  1265.  1576.  1637. 
Louisville,     etc.,    R.     Co.     v.     Bisch 

and.  I.  22  N.  E.  662—1506. 
Ivouisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bourne,  16 

Ky.  Law  Rep.  825—775.  922. 


Louisville,  ctL-.,  11.  Co.  v.   Bowlds,  23 

Ky.    L.  Rep.  1212—1593. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Breckin- 
ridge (Ky. ),  34  S.  VV.  702— i3iw. 
liDwisville,    etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Brinley 

(Ky.),  29  S.  VV.  305—344,  838. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Brownlee, 

14    Hush    (Ky.),  590—431,    1458. 
Louisviile,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Buck,    110 

Ind.  500—1560. 
Louiaviille,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Burke,    0 

loldw.   (Tenn.)   45 — 1267. 
Louisvillr.    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Campbell, 

7     Heisk.     (Tenn.)     253—396,    733, 

744,  774. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Case,  9  Bush 

(Ky.),  728—1209. 
Lduisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Champion, 

24  Ky.  L.  R.  87—1722. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Common- 

wtia  til    (Ky.),  57   S.   W.  508—159. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co.    v.    Conrad,   4 

Ind.  App.  83—1416. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Cowherd, 

120  Ala.  51—579. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Cravcraft, 

12    Ind.    App.    203—438,    440' 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cravton,  69 

Miss.   152—1143 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Crumpler, 

122  Fed.  425—1080. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crunk,   119 

Ind.  542—1061.  1675.  1676,  1677. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Cunning- 
ham,  88   111.  App.  289—485. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Danev,   97 

Ala.  338—1233,   1257. 
I.K>uisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Dies,    91 

Tenn.   177—153.  805. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Douglass, 

09  Miss.   72.3—1102. 
Ivouisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Du    Bose, 

120— Ga.   339—1146. 
Jjouisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Duncan,  137 

Ala.  446—908,  918. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Echols,  97 

Ala.   556—183,  568. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ellis,  97  Kv. 

330—1563. 
Ijouisville.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Espenscheid, 

17   Ind.  App.  558—1062. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Falvev,   104 

Ind.  400—1718. 
Txjuisville.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Faylor,  126 

Ind.    126—1032.    1033,    1267,    1494. 
Ix)uisville,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.    Flanagan, 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  refereuccs  are  to  the  pages.) 


clix 


113   Ind.   488—116,    128,    146,    153, 

184. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Ck).  v.  Fleming,  14 

Lea       (Tenn.),      128—1008,      1219, 

1248,   1390,   1446,   1592,   1702,   1712, 

1720. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    Fliim,    16 

Ky.  L.  E,ep.  57 — 1166. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frazee,  24 

Ky.  L.  Rep.   1273—890. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Ft.  Wayne 

Electric  Co.   (Ky.),  55  S.  W.  918— 

211. 
Louisville,     etc.,    R.    Co.     v.     Gaines 

(Ky.),  36  S.  W.  174—1417. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Garrett,   8 

Lea    (Tenn.),  438—1397. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Gatewood, 

14  Ky.  Law  Rep.    108—1405. 
Louisvil'e.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gerson,  102 

Ala.  409—7. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gilbert,  88 

Tonn.  430—440,  451,  494,  1456. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Gilmer,  89 

Ala.  534—239,  582. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Godman, 

104   Ind.   490—788,   803,   838,   846. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Ck).   v.  Grant,   99 

Ala.   325—454,   492. 
Louisville,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    Gregory's 

Adm'r,  141  Ky.  747—1109,   1196. 
Louisville,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  Hailey,  94 

Tonn.   383—1059. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hamed,  23 

Ky.   L.   Rep.    1651—818,   905. 
Louifiville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Harris,   9 

Jjea    (Tenn.),  180—999. 
Louisville,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Hartvvcll, 

99  Ky.  436—208,  213. 
Louisville,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Hartwell, 

18  Ky.  L.   Rep.  745—612. 
Louisville,   etc.,    R.   Co.    v.    Hedger,   9 

Bush    (Ky.),   64.5—822,  907. 
Lou  sville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Heilprin, 

95    111.    App.    402—280,    358,    597, 

607. 
Louisville,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Hendricks, 

128  Ind.  462—1103.  1495. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Hull,    24 

Ky.  Law  Rep.  37.5—600. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  18 

Kv.   L.   lU'p.  20(1— r2.")6. 
Lonisvillo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Johnson, 

108  Ala.  62—1258,   1402,  1428. 


Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  92 

Ala.  204—992,  998. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  44 

111.  App.  56—1230,  1676. 
Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Johnston,  79 

Ala.  430-1229. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,   100 

Ala.  263—777. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Jones,   83 

Ala.    376—1115,    1131,    1235,    1475, 

1500.   1700. 
Louisville,  etc.,   R.  Co.   v.  Jones,   108 

Ind.    551—1500. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Katzen- 

leiger,   16  Lea    (T(.nn.),  380—1306. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keefer,  146 

Ind.  21—12. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Keller,   20 

Ky.   Law  Rep.  957 — 1220. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Kelly,    92 

Ind.    371—1148,    1242,    1244,    1261, 

1266.    1576,   1662. 
Louisville,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kelsey,  89  Ala. 

287—492,  582. 
Louisville,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Kingman, 

18  Ky.  Law  Rep.  82—1049. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Klyman 

(Tenn.),  67   S.   W.  472—1024. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Kupper 

(Ky.),  118  S.  W.  266—1156. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Landers 

(Ala.),  33  So.  482—469. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  97  Ala. 

325—1678. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Lewis,    14 

Ky.   L.  Rep.   770—1256. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Logan,   88 

Ky.   232—1194,   1401,   1407. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Logsdon, 

24  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1500—548. 
Louisville,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Long,    94 

Ky.  410-1207,   1024. 
Loui-sville,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Lucas,    119 

Ind.  583—1155.  1232,  1235,  1236. 
Louisvilh?,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Mahan,   71 

Ky.    (8   Bush)    184—1350,    1352. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Manoliester 

Mills.  88  T.nn.  653—413,  49(),  551, 

576.  579,   1459. 
Louisville,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Martin,    8 

Ky.   L.  Rep.   432—815. 
Loiii-^villc.    otv.,    R.    Co.    v.   Mask,    64 

Miss.   738-1225,   1257. 
Louisville,  etc.,  11.  Co.  v.  Mason,  11 


dx 


i  AbLK  Ul"'  CASE.s. 
(The  ri'fori'iicis  ;ire  to  tlio  pagvs.y 


l/-a     (Touii.).    lU>"r)S'J,    58-1,    oS."), 

OIKS. 
Louisville,    i-U'..    II.    Co.    v.    McL'liiin, 

2;i  Ky.  L.  Hop.  1S78— 17t21. 
Louisvillt",  (>ic..   R.   Co.  v.  McCoy,  81 

Ky.   4U3— 1722. 
Louisville,   etc.,    11.    Co.    v.    MeEvvan, 

17   Ky.  L.   Rep.  -lOli— lltiO,    1I.S7. 
Louisville,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  MoCuiro,  79 

Ala.  ;{!).J— 2G,   1S8.  384,  3!)r>.  (i46. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    McNally, 

31    Kv.   Law   Kep.    1357— ltl22. 
Louisviile,   etc..   R.   Co.  v.   AI<yer,   78 

Ala.   5!t7— 271,  291,  44G,  518,   743, 

70!),  1457. 
Louisville,  etc..   R.  Co.  v.  Miles,   100 

Ky.  84—1228. 
LouisvilU>.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  141 

Ind.    533—1706,    1716,    1717,    1727, 

1728. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Minogue,  90 

Ky.   369—1716. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Natchez, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Miss.  399—552. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nicholai,  4 

Ind.     App.     119—26,     1306,     1333, 

1450,  1453,  1455,  1456. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Oden,  80 

Ala.  38—395,  405,  488,  516,  1456, 

1457. 
Louisville,   etc..    R.    Co.   v.   Odil,    96 

Tenn.  61—773. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Orr,  84  Ind. 

50—1541. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Owen,   93 

Kv.   201—494.    896. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Parke,   90 

Ky.  580—1215. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Patterson, 

69  Miss.  421—1175,  1266. 
lyouisvillt?,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pcdigo,  108 

Ind.  481—1212,  1.501. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Phillips,  22 

Ky.  Law  Rep.  842—1587. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.   Plummcr 

(Ky.),    35    S.    W.    1113—455. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Queen  City 

Coal  Go.  (Ky.),  35  S.  VV.  626—137, 

369. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rammacher, 

21  Kv.  L.  Rep.  250— 12.']9. 
Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Reynolds,  24 

Ky.  L.  R.   1402—1477. 
Louisvillp.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ricketta,  93 

Kv.  IIG— 1065. 


louisviile,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   lliclimond, 

2:;  Ky.  L.  Rep.  2394—1267. 
Loui.^viile,  ete.,    R.    Co.   v.   Ritter,    85 

Ky.     368- 1098,    1212,    1235,    1495, 

1513. 
Louisville,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Robbins  4 

Tex.  App.  Civ.  C'as.,  §  43 — 495. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robinson,  13 

Ky.    Law  Rep.  275—600,  838. 
Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Scott's 

Adui'r,    108   Ky.  392—1065. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  S.  D.  Chest- 
nut &  Bro.,  24  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1840 

—700. 
Louisville   &    N.    R.    Co.   v.    Shepherd 

(Ala.  App.),  61  So.  14—874. 
Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Sherrod,  84 

Ala.   178—491,  454. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Smith,    2 

Duv.   (Ky.)    556—1500. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Snyder,  117 

Tnd.    435—1082,    1212,    1475,    1708, 

1718. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Sowell,  90 

Tonn.   17—439,  458,  494,  881,  1459. 
Louisville,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Stacker,  86 

Tenn.  343—1040,  1229,  1080. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v,  Steele,  6  Ind. 

App.  183—881. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stewart,  56 

Fed.  808-1563. 
Louisville,  etc.,  Rv-  Co.  v.   Stout,  66 

lU.  App.  298—1664. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stubcr,  108 

Fed.  934—1002. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  81 

Ky.  024—1258,   1402,   1408. 
Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Tarter 

(Ky.),    39    S.     W.    698—739,    757, 

700. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  126 

Ind.    120—1450,   1459. 
Ijouisvillo,   etc.,   R.    Co.    v.   Tennessee 

Brewing    Co.,    96    Tenn.    677—749, 

778. 
Louisville,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Thompson, 

107  Ind.  44Z— 314,  959,  1021,  1029, 

10.34,  1082.   1501. 
Louisville,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Thompson, 

04  Miss.  584—1716. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Touart,  97 

Ala.   514—119,    137,   341,   570,   578. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Trent,    1(5 

Lea    (Tenn.),  420—593,  605. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  tx)  the  pages.) 


cbd 


Louisville,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Trent,    11 

Lea  (Tenn.),  82 — 815. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Turner,  100 

Tenn.  213—1025,   1145. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walker,  110 

Ky.  961—159. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walker,  23 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  453—165. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Weaver,  9 

Lea    (Tenn.),    38-744.    758,    1345, 

1361,  1303. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Whitman, 

79  Ala.  328-1148,  1181,  1719. 
Louisville,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v.    Wilsey 

(Ky.),  12  S.  W.  275—1702,  1711. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  132 

Ind.  517—157,  720,   1185. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  119 

Ind.  3.52—165,  628,  660,  720. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  30 

Ky.   Law    Rep.    1055—1683. 
Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Wolfe,   128 

Ind.  347—1705,  1713,  1740. 
Louisville,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Wood,   113 

Ind.    544—1150,    1237,    1241,    1706, 

1716. 
Louisville,    etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Wurl,   62 

111.  App.  381—1719. 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Wvnn,   88 

Tenn.  320—458,  494,  496,  571,  822, 

881.  905. 
Louisville  R.   Co.  v.   Hutti,    141    Ky. 

511—1390. 
Louisville  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell.  138  Ky. 

190—1001,   1699. 
Louisville  R.   Co.  v.  Wilder,    143  Ky. 

436—1195,  1253. 
Louisville  St.   Rv.   Co.  v.   Brownfield, 

29  Ky.  L.  R.  1097-1502. 
Tvouisviile  S.  W.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Mitchell, 

101  Ark.  289—874. 
Love  V.  Ross,  89  Iowa,  400 — 624. 
IvOvejoy  V.  Murray,   3  Wall.    (U.   S.) 

1—531. 
Loveland   v.  Burke,   120   Mass.   139 — 

36,  567. 
Loverin   &  Browne  Co.  v.  Travis.   135 

Wis.  .322-1736. 
Lovett   v.   Hobbs,   2    Show.    127—135 

182.  945. 
Low  V.  Dp  Wolf,  8  Pick.   (Mass.)    101 

—232. 
Lowe  V.  East  Tonrif^spo,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

90  Ga.  85 — .T15.  359. 
Lowp  V.  Martin.   IS  Til.  286—16. 


Lowe  V.  Moss,  12  111.   (2  Peck)   477— 

358. 
Lowell  Wire  Fence  Co.  v.  Sarg.nt,  8 

Allen   (Mass.),  189—39,  739. 
Lowenstein  v.  Lombard,  Avres  &  Co., 

164  N.  Y.  324—537,  533,"  815,  2013. 
Lowenthal  v.  Vicksbiirg,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

117  La.  1007— HOG. 
Lowery  v.  Manliattan  Ry.  Co.,  99  N. 

Y.  158—552,  1478. 
Lowery  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  12  Daly 

(N.  Y.),  431—1114. 
Lowery   v.   Western   Un.  Tel.   Co.,   00 

N.  Y.  198—1567. 
Lowry  v.  Mt.  Adams,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 

Fed.  827—1717. 
Loy  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  68  Wash. 

33—999,  1418,  1438. 
Loyd  V.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Mo 

509—1679. 
L.   Starks  Co.  v.  Grand  Rapids  &   I. 

Ry.  Co.    (Mich.),  131  N.  W.   143— 

1879. 
Luby  V.  Hudson  R.  R.  Co.,   17  N    Y 

131—1564. 
Lucas    V.     Burlington,    etc.,    R      Co 

(Iowa).  84  N.  W.  673—404. 
Lucas  V.  Detroit  City  R.  Co.,  92  Mich 

412—1582. 
Lucas  V.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   33 

Wis.   41—1057,   1145. 
Lucas   V.   New   Bedford,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

6  Gray  (Mas.^.),  64— 159S,  1675. 

Lucas  V.  Noekells,  4  Bing.  729 048. 

Lucas  V.  Taunton,  etc.,  R.^Co.,  6  Gray 

(Mass.).   64—1061,    1247. 
Lueiso  Oil  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  R    Co 

2  Pittsb.  R.   (Pa.)   477—335. 
Luckel  v.  Century  Bldg.  Co.,  177  AIo 

608—1213.        '  *= 

Lucy   v.    Chicago    G.    W.    R.    Co      64 

Minn.  7—1167,  1194. 
Ludwig  y.   Meyre,   5   W.   &   S.    fPa  ) 

435—271,  343. 
Luosco  Oil  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co 

2  Pittsb.  477—582. 
Lugner  v.  Milwaukee  Elec.   Ry     etc 

Co.,  146  Wis.  175—993,  1447.  ' 
Luke  y.  Lyde,  2  Burr,  887 — 243. 
Lukon  V.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R   Co    '>48 

111.  377—1857. 
Lundquist  V.  Grand  Trunk  W.  R    Co 

121   Fed.  915-1789. 
I-i-ruly  V.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  66  Cal 

''^1-1028. 


clxu 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  retVroiuH\j  are  to  the  pagt!8.) 


Lunsiford    v.    lx)uisville   &   N.    R.    Co., 

15:5  Ky.  -is:?— Ulii'.l. 
Lveett  V.  Manhiiltuii  Hy.  Co.,  12  App. 

"Div.    (N.  V.)    321)— 08. 
Lv:^)  V.  Newbolil,  9  Exch.  30G— 9S8. 
Lygo  V.  Newliuld,  8  E\eh.  302— !)58. 
Ly.e   V.   Barker,   5   Bin.    (Pa.)    457 — 

531. 
LmicIi   v.    Metropolitan   Elev.   R.   Co., 

■yo  X.  Y.  77— 9!I9,   1183. 
Lvnch    V.    New    York    Cent.,    etc.,    R. 
'Oo.,    8    App.    Div.    (N.    Y.)    458— 
10!)S. 
Lvne  V.   Chesjipeake  &  0.  R.  Co.,  68 

"W.  Va,  213—1001. 
Lvne   V.   Delaware,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    170 

*I-\h1.   847— ISSi). 
Lvn?   V.   Michigan,    135   U.   S.    IGl— 

'2l'i!l. 
Lvnn    V.    Southorn    Pac.    R.    Co.,    103 

'Cal.  7—1222. 
Lvod  V.  Haugh  &  Kecnan  Storage  & 

'Transfer  Co.,  223  Pa.  148—73. 
Lvon  V.  Erie  R.  Co.,  57  N.  Y.  489— 

*451. 
Lyon  V.  MelLs,  5  East.  428—150. 
Lvon  V.   Western  New  York,  etc.,  R. 

'Co.,   88  Hun    (N.  Y.),  27—754. 
Lyons   v.    Boston    Elev.   Ry.   Co.,   204 

'Mass.  227—1515. 
Lyons   v.   Broadway,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   32 

N.  Y.  St.  R.  232—1156,  1166. 
Lyons  v.  Hill,  46  N.  H.  49—266. 
Lyons  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
136  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   903—406. 


M. 

Mabry  v.  City  Electric  R.  Co.,  116  Ga. 

624—1712. 
Ikiac  Andrew     v.     Electric     Tel.      Co. 

(Eng.).   17  C.  B.  3—90,  465. 
Mace  v.   Southern  R.   Co.,   151   N.   C 

404—1417. 
Machu  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  L. 

J.  Exch.  271—186. 
Mack  y.   Great  Western  Despatch,  2 

O.  C.  D.  22—427. 
Mack     v.     Los     Angeles     Tract.     Co. 

(Cal.),  73  Pac.  455—1692. 
Maekav   y.   Western   Union   Tel.    Co., 

16  Nev.  226—616. 
Ma-kenzie  v.  Cox,  38  E.  C.  L.  263— 

579. 


Maeken/.ie   v.   Cox,   9   C.   &   P.   032— 

412. 
Ma.klin  v.  Waterliouse,  5  Bing.  212— 

527. 
Maekoy    v.    Mi>s(iuri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    5 
Melrary    (C.   S. ) ,  538—1703,  1716, 
1727. 
Matkoy   v.   MLssouri   Pac.   R.   Co.,    18 

Fed.  236—1211. 
Maeleiinaii  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  107 

N.  Y.  623-1602. 
Jlacleiinan  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  52 

N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  22—1602. 
Maeloon    v.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    3 

Int.  Com.  Kep.  711-1793. 
Macon   Consol.   St.   R.   Co.   v.   Barnes, 

113   Ga.   212—1080,    10S2,    1216. 
Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  38  Ga. 
4()()_1514^    15G5,    106!),    1071,    1727, 
1728. 
Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  125  Ga. 

810-1438. 
Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  108  (jra. 

84—1221,  1633. 
Macon  Grocery  Co.  v.  Atlantic  C.  L. 

R.   Co.,   163   Fed.  738—1873. 
Macon  Ry.  &  El.   Co.  v.  Vining,   120 

Ga.  511—1249,   1681. 
Macrow  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  6  Q.  B.  612—1296. 

MacVeagh   v.   Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

3  N.  Mex.  205—328,  329,  331,  373. 

Madan  v.  Covert,  81  N.  Y.  296—407. 

Madan   v.   Sherrard,   73   N.  Y.   329— 

30,  426,  433,  447,  1333. 
Madden   v.  Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.,  50 
Mo.     App.    666—1237,    1475,    1504, 
1676. 
Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whitesel,    11 

Ind.  55—244. 
Mad  River  R.  Co.  v.  Fulton,  20  Ohio, 

318—1295. 
Maercker  v.  Brooklyn  H.  R.  Co.,  137 

App.   Div.    (N.  Y.)    49—1549. 
Maercker  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 

122  N.  Y.  Supp. '87-1649. 
Magar  v.  Hammond,  54  App.  Div.  (N. 

Y.)   532-1168. 
Magdeburg  General   Ins.  Co.  v.  Paul- 
sen. 29  Fed.  530-587. 
Maggioli  v.  St.  Louis  Tr.  Co.,  108  Mo. 

App.  416—1620. 
Maghee  v.   Camden,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   45 
N.  Y.  514—222,  738,  760,  770. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


clxiii 


Magill  V.   Seaboard  Air  Line  Ev.,  84 

S.  C.  416—953. 
Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  70  X.  Y.  410 — 

3tJ,  2S5,  497,  499,  504. 
Magnin  v.   Dinsmore,   62  X.  Y.   35 — 

504,  524,  617. 
Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  56  N.  Y.   168— 

371,  461,  504,  528,  570,   1463. 
Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  51  How.  Pr.  (X, 

Y.)    457—522. 
Magnus  v.  Piatt,  115  N.  Y.  Supp.  824 

—506. 
Magnus  v.  Platt,  62  Misc.   Kep.    (N. 

Y.)   499—535,  705. 
Magoflin  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  102 

Mo.   540—1050,    1494. 
Magoric  v.  Little,  25  Fed.  627-1130. 
Magrane  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  183 

Mo.   119—549,   1213,   1494. 
Maguire    v.    Middlesex    R.    Co.,    115 

Ma-s.  239—1553,   1596,  1640.   1643. 
Maguire  v.  St.  Louis  Tr.  Co.    (Mo.), 

78  S.  W.  838—1620. 
Mahar  v.  Xew  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

5  App.  Div.  (X.  Y.)  22—1225.  1243. 
Maher  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Mo. 

267—1270. 
Maher  v.   Central  Park,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

39  X.   Y.   Super.  Ct.   155—1640. 
Mahon  v.  Blake,  125  Mass.  477—234, 

241,  599. 
Mahoning  Valley  R.   Co.  v.   De   Pas- 

cale,  70  Ohio 'St.   179—1714. 
Mahoning  Valley   R.   Co.  v.   De   Pas- 

cale,  3  St.  Ry."  Rep.  737—1170. 
Mai'rnan  v.  Xew  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

24   La.  Ann.  333—385. 
Maillefcrt   v.    Interbnrough    Rap.    Tr. 

Co.,  50  Misc.  R.   (X.  Y.)    160—1208. 
Mairs  v.  Ba'.t'rnore,  etc..  R.  Co.,   175 

N.  Y.  409—217. 
Maisels  v.  Drv  Dock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 

App.  Diy.   TX.  Y.)   391—1564. 
Majeslic   Conl   &  Coke  Co.  v.   Illinois 

Cent.  R.  Co..  162  Fed.  810-1820. 
Malcolm    V.    Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

106  X.  C.  63— in:;8. 
Mnl'Of'k  y.  Tower  Tirove.  etc.,  R.  Co., 

57  ^ro.  17—1150,   1175. 
Malhndo  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  30 

X.  Y.  372— 124.r 
Mali  V.  Lord,  39  X.  Y.  381—1184. 
Mnllard  y.  Ninth   Ave.  R.  Co.,  27  St. 

llcp.   (N.  Y.)   801  —  1587. 


Mallorv  v.  Burrett,  1  E.  D.  Sm.    (N. 

Y.)    234—223.  634,  639,  756. 
Mallory  v.  Tioga  R.  Co.,  39  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)    488-52,  97,   121. 
Mallory  S.  S.  Co.  v.  G.  A.  Bahn  Dia- 
mond   &    Optical    Co.     (Tex.     Ciy. 

App.),  154  S.  W.  282-2003. 
Malone    y.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    12 

Gray      (Mass.),     388—1333,     1377, 

1452. 
Malone  y.  Metropolitan  Express  Co., 

86  X.  Y.  Supp.  1039—1333. 
Malonev   y.   Metropolitan   St.   R.   Co., 

95  App.  Diy.   (N.  Y.)    393—1681. 
.ualott  V.  Central  Trust  Co.,  168  Ind. 

428—1049. 
Malott  y.  Weston   (Ind.  App.),  98  N. 

E.  127—1470. 
Malott  y.  Woods,  109  111.  App.  512— 

1711. 
Malpass   y.   Hestonville,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

129  Pa.  St.  599—1648. 
Maltby    y.    Chica.oro,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    52 

Mich.  108-1082. 
Manahan    y.    Stpinway,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

125  X.  Y.  760—1588. 
Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  L. 

R.  8  H.  L.  703 — {65. 
]Manda  y.  Wells.  Fargo  &  Co.,  21  Misc. 

R.   (X.  Y.)   308— 287. 
Manegold  y.  The  E.  A.  Shores,  Jr.,  73 

Fed.  342—1989,   1905. 
Mangan  v.  Brooklyn  R.  Co.,  38  X.  Y. 

455—548,  1588."^ 
Manhattan   Oil    Co.   y.    Camden,    etc., 

Transp.  Co.,  54  X.  Y.  197-771. 
Mann   y.   Birchard,   40  Vt.   326 — 343 

345,  360,  427,  459,  571,  758,   1452, 

14.59. 
Mann     y.     Pere     Marquette     R.     Co. 

(Mich.),   07   X.   W.   721—456,   457. 
Mann  v.  Philadelphia  Tract.  Co.,  175 

Pa.  St.  122—1642. 
Mann  v.   White  River  Log  &   Boom- 
ing Co.,  46  Mich.  38 — 86. 
Mann-Boudoir  Car  Co.  y.   Dupre    54 

Fed.   64r — 1559. 
Manning  y.   Detroit,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   67 

Mich.   677—1533. 
Manning  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co     95 

Ala.   392—999. 
Manning  y.   Watson,  Cheyes    (S    C  ) 

60—681. 
Manning  v.  West  End  St.  R.  Co.,  160 

Mass.  230—1508. 


.•Ixiv 


TABLK  OF  CASJiS. 
(Tlio  rofori'iiccji  aie  (<>  tlio  p;',:^'s.) 


Maniion  v.  raiiuliu  IntcrstiUe  Kv.  Co., 

.>(!  \V.  Va.  5.")4— 1(»S7. 
Mnimon    v.    CaiiuU'ii    Iiitorstato    Ry. 

Co.,  3  St.  Ry.  Rep.  J)2S— 1.'>82. 
Manser   v.    Kustorn   Cmintios   R.   Co., 

3   L.  T.  N.  S.  5S5— llO.l,   lll(i. 
Maiison  v.  Jacob,  93  Mo.  3.]  1—112. 
Maiison  v.  Jacob,  12  Mo.  App.  125 — 

112. 
Mant<T  V.  Holmes,  10  IVIctc.   (Mass.), 

402—70. 
Mainiiiijj    v.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

1:52  Mass.  Ilt5— 13!)S. 
2.laiuifactiirers.  etc.,  Union  v.  Minne- 
apolis, etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Tnt.  Com.  Rep. 

115—1781.   1704,   17n7. 
Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Pinch,  91  Mich. 

156— «J04. 
Manville  v.  Cleveland  &  T.  R.  Co.,  2 

Ohio  Dec.  359—1063. 
Maples  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

Conn.  557—999,  1393,  1428. 
Marande   v.   Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    102 

Fed.  246—240. 
Marcott  v.  Jlinneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

147   Wis.  216—1110. 
Marcus  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  167 

III.  App.  638-179. 
Marine  Bank  v.  Wright,  48  N.  Y.  1— 

226,  233. 
Marine,    etc.,    Ins.   Co.   v.    St.    Louis, 

etc.,  R.  Co..  41  Fed.  643—119,  137, 

150,   196,  357. 
Mariner  v.  Smith,  5  Heish.    (Tenn.), 

208—6. 
Marion    v.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   64 

Iowa,  568 — 1562. 
Marion  St.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Shaffer,  9  Ind. 

App.   486  —  16.39. 
Marks  v.  Alaska  S.  S.  Co.    (Wash.), 

127   Pa.    1101—1162. 
Marks  v.  Rochester  Rv.  Co.,  41  App. 

Div.   (N.  Y.)   66—972. 
Marmonstein  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 

13  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.')  32—538,  765, 

1362.   1345.   1307. 
Maronev  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

106  Mass.  15.3—1452. 
Marqiutle  v.  Kirkwood,  45  Mich.   51 

—527.  .568.  739.  778. 
Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Langton,  32 

Mich.  251—590,  592. 
Marquis  v.  Wood,  29  Misc.  Rep.    (N. 

Y.)   590 — 462. 


Marr  v.   Western   Union   Tel.   Co.,   S3 

Tenn.  529—91,  1456. 
Marriol    v.    London,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    87 

E.  C.  S.  499— 15S. 
!Marru9  v.  New  Haven  Steamboat  Co., 

30    Misc.    Kep.     (N.    Y.)     421—212, 

478.  48:5. 
Mars.  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  54 

linn    (N.  Y.)    62.5—549.   1267. 
Mars    v.     New     York,    etc..     11.     Co. 

(Conn.),  52  Atl.  610 — 766. 
Marsalis  v.  Louisiana  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

129    La.    146—1532,    1584. 
Marailen  Co.  v.  Bullett,  24  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

1697—591. 
Marsh   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   Rv.   Co.,   75 

Iowa,  361—668. 
Marsh   v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  9   Fed. 

873 — 639. 
Marsh   v.   Union   Pac.   R.   Co.,   3   Mc- 

Crary   (U.  S.)   236—585. 
Marshall  v.  American  Express  Co.,  7 

Wis.   1—198,  249,  253,  264. 
Marshall  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48 

III.  475—1562. 
Marsluill    v.   Nashville   Ry.,   elc.   Co., 

118  Tenn.  2.54—1035,  1036,  1277. 
Marshall  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.   Co., 

40  N.  Y.  600—738. 
Marshall  v.  N(>w  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 

45    Barb.     (N.    Y.)    502—170,    355, 

590,  596. 
Marshall  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 

45  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  620—583. 
Marshall  v.  Pontiac,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120 

Mich.  4,5—1355. 
Marshall  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co..  78 

Mo.  610—1228,   1423,   1798. 
Marshall  v.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  E. 

C.  L.  655—991. 
Marshall  &  Michel  Grain  Co.  v.  Kan- 
sas City  R.  Co.,  176  Mo.  480—770. 
Marshall,   etc..   Grain   Co.   v.   Kansas 

City,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    176   Mo.   480— 

751. 
Martin  v.  American   Express  Co.,   19 

Wis.    336—291,    768,    772. 
Martin   v.   Boston  &  N.   St.   Ry.  Co., 

205  Mass.   16—1528. 
Martin     v.     Boston     Elev.     Ry.     Co. 

(Mass.),  101   N.  E.  1089 — 1525. 
I\Iartiii   v.   Central   R.    Co.,    121    App. 

Div.    (N.  Y.)    .552—1.-536,   1373. 
Martin  v.  Cliicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Int. 

Com.  Rep.  32—1797,  1795. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


clxv 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Martin  v.  Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

'J  ex.   Civ.   App.   556 — 1S!>. 
Martin  v.  Great  Northern  Rv.  Co.,  110 

Minn.  118— 301. 
Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.    (U.  S.) 

339—1895. 
Martin   v.   Kansas  Citv,   etc..   R.   Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  139  S.  W.  615— 

917. 
Martin  v.  McLaughlin.  9  Colo.   153 — 

650. 
Martin  v.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103 

N.  Y.  626—1559. 
Martin  v.  Rhode  Island  Co.,  32  R.  I, 

162—1073. 
Martin  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  3  App. 

Div.  (N.  Y.)  448—1486,  1616,1643, 

1665. 
Martin  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  51  S.  C. 

150—965,   974. 
Martin  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  2  Int. 

Com.  R.   1—1781,  1786,  1827,  1829. 
Martin  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 

Ark.  510—156,   176,   190,    191,   552. 
Martin  v.  The  Southwark,  191  U.  S. 

1—2001,   2029. 
Martindale  v.   Kansas   City,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,  50  Mo.  508—1227. 
Martindale  v.  Snith,  41  E.  C.  L.  592 

645. 
Martland   v.   Bekins   Van   &    Storage 

Co.,  19  Cal.  App.  283—629,  647. 
Marx  V.   Louisiana   Western    R.   Co,, 

112  La.  108.5—1419. 
Maskos  V.  American  S.  S.  Co.,  11  Fed. 

698—1370. 
^laslin  V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

W.  Va.  180—33,  43,  822,  838,  1037, 

1429,  1451,  1456,  1461. 
Mason  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co..  37  U. 

C.  Q.   B.   16.3—379,  773,  776. 
Mason  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  25  Mo. 

App.   473—798,   846. 
Mason  v.  Nasliville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   135 

Ga.  471—1172. 
Mason  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill 

N.  C.  482—457. 
Mason   v.   Seaboard    Air  L.   Rv.,   159 

N.  C.    183—1420. 
Massachusetts  L.   &  T.  Co.  v.   Fitch- 

hurp  R.  Co.,  143  Mass.  318— .590. 
MasHcll  V.   Boston   Elcr.  Rv.   Co.,   191 

Mass.  491  —  1020,    1274,    1441. 
MasHoth  V.  Delaware  &  H.  C.  Oo.,  64 

N.  Y.  524 — 1516. 


Masterson  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

102  Wis.  571—1150,  1429. 
Masterson   v.   Crosstown   St.    Rv-   Co. 

of  BufTalo,  201  X.  Y.  499—1521. 
Masterson  v.  Macon  City,  etc.,  E.  Co., 

88   Ga.   436-1680. 
Mate  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  27 

Iowa,   22—1356. 
Math    v.    Chicago    City    Rv.    Co.,    24o 

111.    114—1651. 
Matheson  v.  Southern  Rv.  Co.,  79  S. 

C.  155 — 515. 
Mathevsr  v.  Wabash   R.   Co.,   115   Mo. 

App.  468—1140,  1270. 
Mathieson  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

(Iowa),  100  N.  W.  51—1602. 

Mathis  V.  Thomas,  101  Ind.  119—647. 

Mathison  v.  Staten  Island  M.  R.  Co., 

72  N.  Y.  Supp.  954—66  App.  Div. 

(N.  Y.)    610—1403. 

Matter  of  Application  of  Clark,  2  Int. 

Com.  R.  797-1826. 
Matter  of  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Int. 

Com.  C.  Rep.  69 — 1791. 
Matter  of  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Int. 

Com.  Rep.  137—1761. 
Matter  of  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  2  Int. 
Com.   Rep.   406—1791,    1832,    1852. 
Matter   of   Indiana    Supplies,    1    Int. 

Com.  Rep.  22—1854. 
Matter  of  Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   5 

Int.  Com.  R.  406—1790,  1791. 
Matter    of    U.    S.    Commissioners    of 
Fish,  etc.,  1  Int.  Com.  Rep.  606 — 
1854. 
Matter  of  Webb,  8  Taunt.  443—256, 

386,  392. 
Matteson  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 

57  N.  Y.  552—1356. 
Matteson  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  76  N.  Y.   381—1353,   1356. 
Matteson  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 

35  N.  Y.  487—1561. 
Matteson  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 
62  Barb.   (N.  Y.)    364—1562,  1716 
Matthews  v.  American  Cent.  Ins.  Co. 

154  N.  Y.  449 — 483. 
Matthews  v.  Cliarleston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

38  S.  C.  429 — 1229. 

Matthews  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co. 

150  Mo.  App.  715—1022,  1276,  1621. 

Mattingly  v.  Pmnsylvania  Co.,  2  Int. 

Com.    Rep.    806—1776,    1784,    1793. 

Mattison   v.   New  York  Cent.   R.  Co., 

76  N.  Y.  381—1351. 


cl 


xvi 


'lAIM.i:  OF  CASKS. 


(The  refereucoa  ure  to  tlio  pages.; 


Mattison  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 

N.  Y.  5r)-2— lyn,   l.-ial.  KJf.ii,  1. {,■)(>. 
Miitur  V.  Oliio  Cent.  Triiitioii  Co.,  81 

Ohio  St.  4!»4— 1C.22. 
Matz  V.  St.  Paul  City  U.  Co.   (Minn.) 

o.}  N.  W.    1071— IIJIO. 
MauKlin  v.  Srahoard  .\ir  Lino  Kv.,  73 

S.  C.  !)— KJG. 
Maiiritz  v.  New  York,  etc.,  \l.  Co.,  23 

Fed.    7li7— 1201.    12!):5.    12!)7,    1330, 

1332,   1340,    13(;i,    13(52. 
Maurit/  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 

Am.  &  Enp.  R.  Cas.  286—1293. 
Maury   v.   Talniadpc,   2   McLean    (U. 

S.)    157-1129,  1211. 
Maverick  v.  Eigiith  Ave.  R.  Co..  36  N. 

Y.   378—947,   1080,   1211,   1217. 
Maving  v.  Todd.  4  Campb.  225 — 463. 
Maving  v.  Todd.  1  Stark,  72—83,  490. 
Mavrow  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  6  Q.  B.  612—1291. 
Maximum  Kate  Case,  107  U.  S.  479— 

1759.  1760,  1761. 
Maxwell  v.  Mclvry,  2  Bibb   (Ky.)  211 

— 85. 
Maxwell  v.  Soutliern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  48 

La.  Ann.  385 — 455. 
May  V.  Hanson,  5  Cal.  360 — 59. 
Mav  V.  New  Orleans,  178  U.  S.  496 — 

1735. 
May  V.  Ontario,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Ont. 

Rep.  70—1063. 
May  V.  Shreveport  Traction  Co.,   127 

La.  420—1177. 
Mayall  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.  Co.,  19  N. 

H.  122—185. 
Maybin  v.  South   Carolina  R.   Co.,   8 

Rich.  L.    (S.  C.)    240—80,  81. 
Mavell  V.  Potter,  2  Johns.  Cas.    (N. 

Y.)    371—198,  401,  404. 
Mayer  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  31  U. 

C.  C.  P.  248 — 392. 
.Mavfield  v.  Soutliern  Ry.  Co.,  84  S.  C. 

393—866. 
Mayhew  v.  Eames,  3   B.  &  C.  601— 

403. 
Mayo    V.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    104 

Mass.   142 — 1598. 
Mavo    V.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    104 

Mass.   137—1242.   1691. 
Mavor  V.  Oregon   Short  Line  Co.,  21 

Utah,   141—1215. 
Mavor,  etc.,  of  New  l^ork  v.   Starin, 

100  N.  Y.   1—59. 


Mavsville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   llorrick,   13 

iJusli.   (Ky.)    122—1716,  1722. 
Mc.Xbsher   v.   Richmond   &   D.   R.   Co., 

108   N.  C.  344—147.    155,   838. 
McAdoo  V.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105 

N.  C.  140—6. 
McAfee  v.   Huidekoper,  9   App.   D.  C. 

36—1664. 
McAlan   v.   Trustees  New   York,   etc., 

Bridge,  43  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   374— 

1672.  1677. 
McAlistor  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

Mo.   351—122,   330,   333,   552,   616, 

734,  805. 
McAlister  v.  Peoples  Ry.  Co.    (Del.), 

54  AtL  743-1085,  1131,  1216,  1267. 
McAllister  v.  Soutliern  Pac.  Co.    (U. 

S.  D.  C.  N.  Y.),  Ill  Fed.  938—204. 
Mc Andrew    v.    Electric    Tel.    Co.,    33 

Eng.  L.  &  Eq.   180—92. 
McAndrew  v.  Wliitlock,  52  N.  Y.  40 — 

199,  257,  259,  272,  354,  384,  399. 
McArthur  v.  Sears,  21  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

190—76,  308. 
jMcBcatli  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

Mo.  App.  44.5—907. 
McP.ride  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  19 

Oreg.   64 — 1518. 
McBurnie  v.  Stetsly,  29  Ky.  Law.  Rep. 

1191—12. 
McCabe  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  154 

111.  App.  380—596. 
McCaffrey    v.    T\vcnty-Third     St.     R. 

Co.,  47  Hun    (N.  Y.)    404 — 462. 
McCaig  V.  Erie  R.  Co.,  8  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

599—1533,    1534. 
McCall  y.   California,   136  U.   S.   339 

—1733. 
McCall  V.  Forsyth,  4  W.  &  S.    (Pa.) 

179— 14S8. 
McCanipbell  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co., 

150  Ky.  723— R30. 
McCance  v.  Ixjndon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  H. 

&  N.  477—522. 
McCann  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 

Md.  202—774. 
IMcCann  v.  Eddy,  133  Mo.  59—767. 
McCann.  v.  Sixth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  117  N. 

Y.  505—1168. 
Mc-Carn  v.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

84  Tex.  352—767. 
McCarragher   v.    Rogers,    120    N.    Y. 

535—1587. 
McCarten   v.   North    Eastern   R.   Co., 

54  N.  J.  Q.  B.  Div.  441—1261. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


clxvii 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


McCarthy   v.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

102   Ala.    193—306,    318,    372,   559, 

561,  576,  749. 
McCarthy  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

9  Mo.  App.  159—138,  740,  756,  758, 

759. 
McCarty  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Tex. 

33—145,    149.   478,   485. 
McCarty   v.   Xew  York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

30  Pa.  St.  247—381,  4l0. 
McCarty  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  R.  Co.,  105 

Mo.   App.   596 — 983,    1U92,    1504. 
McCaslin  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

93  Mich.  553—1576,   1679. 
McCaslin   v.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

69  Miss.  136—1243. 
McCauley  v.   Davidson,   10  Minn.  418 

—118. 
McCauley  v.  Tennessee,  etc..  Coal  Co., 

93  Ala.  356—958,   1288. 
McCawley   v.   Furnace   R.   Co.,   L.   R. 

8  Q.  B.  57—1451. 
McCTanahan  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R. 

Co.,   147  Mo.  App.  386 — 1535. 
McClary  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Neb.  44—373,   1477,   1513,   1704. 
McClelland  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

94  Ind.  276—1403. 
McClenaghan  v.  Brock.  5  Rich  L.   (S. 

C.)    17—945.   948. 
McClure  v.  Hammond,  1  Bav   (S.  C), 

99—23,  72.  75. 
McClure  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

34  Md.  532—1015,  1025,  1027,  1390, 

1415,  1427. 
McClure  v.    Richardson,   Rich  L.    (S. 

C.)   215—12,  72,  186. 
McCollora  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

94  111.  534—821. 
McCombn  V.  North   Carolina,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  67  N.  C.   193—412. 
McConnf^ll  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 

Va.  248—741. 
McConnell  Bros.  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co., 

144  N.  C.  87—514. 
McCook  v.  Dublin,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Ga. 

App.  374 — 1395. 
McCook    V.   Northup,   65    Ark.   225 — 

1428,  1145. 
McCord  V.  Atlantic,  etc..  Air  Line  R. 

Co.    (N.  C),  45  S.   E.   1031—1487, 

1656. 
MoCormack      v.      Tnterborough      Rap. 

Transit.    117  N.  Y.   Supp.  532,   132 

App.  Div.  703—1490. 


McCormick  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

1.   C.  C.  Rep.   611-1868. 
McCormick  v.  Hudson   River  R.   Co., 

4   E.    D.    Sm.    (N.   Y.)     181—1294, 

1363. 
McLormick  v.  Pennsylvania  Cent.   R. 

Co.,  99  N.  Y.  65-1298,  1348,  1371. 
McCormick  v.   Pennsylvania  Cent.  R. 

Co.,   80  N.  Y.   353—1371. 
McCormick  v.   Pennsylvania  Cent.  R. 

Co.,   49  N.  Y.  303-588,    1375. 
McCosson  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  23 

U.  C.  C.  P.  107—392. 
M'cCoun  V.  New  Y'ork  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  66  Barb.   (N.  Y.)   338—1552. 
McCourt   V.   London,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    3 

Ir.  R.   C.  L.   107—186. 
McCoy  V.  Atlantic  Coast  L.  R.  Co.,  84 

S.  C.  62—1380. 
McCoy   V.  Erie,  etc.,   Transp.   Co.,   42 

-Md.'  498 — 456. 
:McCoy    V.    Keokuk,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    44 

Iowa,  424—33,  419,  822,  905. 
McCranie  v.  Wood,  24  La.  Ann.  406 

—325. 
McCrary  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109 

Mo.  App.  567—903. 
McCrary    v.    Missouri,    etc.,    Ry.    Co^ 

99  Mo.  App.  518—818. 
McCullen  v.  New   York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

68  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   209—1432. 
McCullough  V.   Hellweg,   65   Md.  269 

— 635. 
McCullough    V.    Wabash    Western    R. 

Co.,  34  Mo.  App.  23—441. 
McCune   v.   Burlington,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

52  Iowa,  600—455,  494,  527,  861. 
McCurrier   v.    Southern   Pac.   R.    Co., 

122  Cal.  558—1215,   1488. 
McDade  v.  Norfolk  &  W.  Ry.  Co.,  67 

W.    Va.    582,    08    S.    E.    378—1051, 

1170. 
McDaniel  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 

Iowa,  412— .S07.  440.  793. 
McDaniel    v.    Highland    Ave.    R.    Co., 

90  Ala.  64—1065,   1662. 
McDeiTTiott  v.   Boston   Elev.   Ry.  Co., 

1   St.  Rv.  Rep.  325    (Mass.)    68  N. 

E.  34— i588 
McDermott   v.   Chicago,  etc.,   R.    Co., 

82  Wis.  246—1666. 
McDonald  v.  Central  R.  Co.    (N.  J.), 

62   -Vtl.   40.'">— 12.55. 
McDonald  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2!) 

Iowa,  170—1557. 


cixvui 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


(The  ri'iVionci's  uro  U>  the  pages.) 


W<'lX>naia  V.  Cliioago.  I'ti-.,  K.  Co.,  26 

lu\v.vi,    124— l-.!oJ,    1572,    llJ24. 
AicIX>ii.iKl      V.     lluspiuil,     12vi     Alu^s. 

4^2—1133. 
ilicDouald  V.  Illinois  C<'nl.  U.  Co.,  88 

Iowa,   o4.> — 1242,    ililili. 
MelXuuild  V.  l/oiig  l.slaiul  R.  Co.,   110 

N.   Y.  o-lU— 1225,    12JI),    1240,    1243, 

1247,   lOUo. 
AfrUonalil   v.  Jx)ng  Islaiui   K.   Co.,   71 

N.  V.  54li— 1241. 
McDonald    v.    Metropolitan    St.    Rj. 

Co.,  21!>  Mo.  4GS— 1503. 
MclX)nald  v.  Montgomery  St.  R.  Co., 

110  Ala.   Itil— 1470,   1545. 
McDonald    v.    liailruad    Lo.     (Iowa), 

oo  N.  \V.  102—1220. 
McDonald   v.    Sinipson-Cravvford   Co., 

114  App.  Div.    (X.   Y.)    85!)- 1007. 
McDonald   v.   St.   Ixjuis,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

105  Mo.  App.  75—907,   1287,  1427, 

1435. 
McDonald  v.   St.   lx)uis  Tr.   Co.,    108 

Mo.  App.  374 — 1081. 
McDonald  v.  Western  K.  Corp.,  34  N. 

Y.  407—379,  774,  775. 
McDonnell   v.   Chicago   City   Ry.   Co., 

131   111.  App.  227—1491. 
McDunough  v.  Boston  Elev.  Ry.  Co., 

208  Mass.  430—1527. 
McDonoiigh    V.    Metropolitan   R.   Co., 

137     Mass.    210—975,     987,     1600, 

1015. 
McDunough  v    Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  95 

App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  311—1198,  1681. 
McDougal  V.  Central  R.  Co.,  63   Cal. 

431—1544,  1545. 
McDuffee  v.  Portland  &  R.  R.  Co.,  52 

N.   H.   430—118,    121,    157,    1138. 
McEacheran    v.    Michigan    Cent.    R. 

Co.,  101  Mich.  204—701. 
Mci^.achran    v.    Grand   Trunk   R.    Co., 

115  Mich.  318—133,  040. 
McElroy     v.     Iowa     Cent.     Ry.     Co. 

(Iowa),  110  N.  W.  915—1298. 
McElroy   v.    Nashua,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   4 

Cush.    (Mass.)    400—1083,  1213. 
McElroy    v.    Railroad    Co.,    7    Phila. 

(Pa.)   206—1025. 
McElvain  v.  St.  Louis  &,  S.  F.  R.  Co., 

151    Mo.   App.    126—442,   657,   892, 

1918. 
McPIIvane   v.   Central   of  Ga.   R.   Co., 

170  Ala.  525—1161,  1282. 


.\ulvlve<ii    V.    Ivailway    Co.,    109    Ga. 

249—741. 
McEntoe    v.    N«w    Jersey    Steamboat 

Co.,    45    N.    Y.    34—233,    234,    236, 

2o0,  280. 
Mil. win  V.  Jellcrsonville,  etc.,  R.  CV)., 

3.{    liid.  308—227,  231. 
.M;Kaddor  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co., 

U;)  111.  App.  29b— 1480. 
.Mil  adticn    v.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co., 

112     .\Io.    343—430,    439,    459,    493, 

820. 
.McEall   V.    Wabash    R.   Co.,    117   Mo. 

App.  477—902. 
Mil'arlaud  v.  Wheeler,  26  Wend.    (N. 

V.)    407—10,  030,  042. 
iVlcFeat  V.  Philadelphia,   etc.,  R.   Co., 

0  Penn.    (Del.)    513—956. 
Mctiarrahau  v.  New  York,  etc.,  11.  Co., 

171  Mass.  211—1718. 
AIcGarry  v.  Holyoke  St.  R.   Co.,   182 

Mass.   123—1390,   1425. 
McGaw  V.   Adams,   14   How.   Pr.    (N. 

Y.)   401—529. 
McGee  v.  Ba.st,  6  J.  J.  Marsh   (Ky.), 

455 — 7. 
McG<;e  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.,   71 

Mo.  App.  310—700. 
McGee    v.    Consol.    St.    R.    Co.,    102 

Mich.   107—1519. 
McCxee   v.    Missouri    Pac.   R.    Co.,   92 

Mo.    208— lO.-j?,    1071,    1145,    1220, 

1265,  1424. 
McGe«  V.   Railway  Co.,  71   Mo.  App. 

314—627. 
McGeehan    v.    Lehigh    Valley    R.    Co., 

149  Pa.  St.   188—1688. 
McGill   V.    Grand   Trunk   R.    Co.,    19 

Out.  App.  -45—599.  757. 
McGill   V.   Monette,  37  Ala.  49—271. 
McGill  V.  Rowland,  3   Pa.   St.  451— 

62,  1294. 
McGilvray   v.    Wtist   End   St.    R.    Co. 

(Mass.),  41  N.  E.   116—1168. 
McGinn  v.  New  Orleans  Ry.,  etc.,  Co., 

118  La.  811—1532. 
McGinney   v.   Canadian   Pac.   R.    Co., 

7  -Manitoba  L.   R.   151  —  1502. 
McGinnis  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  21 

Mo.    App.    399—1149,    1175,    1181, 

1711,   1712. 
McGlvnn    v.    Brooklyn   Crosstown    R. 

R.,  6  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  51—1207. 
MoGovern  v.  Intrrurban  Ry.  Co.,   1C3 

Iowa,   13—1674. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


cLxix 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


McGovem  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 

67  N.  Y.  417—1587. 
McGowan  v.  \\  ilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

95  N.  C.  417—353. 
IMcGowen   v.    Morgan's    L.,    etc.,    Co., 

41  La.  Ann.  73:^-1394. 
McGrath  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87 

Hun    (X.   Y.;,    310— ItiS'J. 
McGrath  v.  Charleston  ik,  \V.   C.  Ry. 

Lo.,  91   S.  C.   552—289. 
McGrath   v.  New   York,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

63  N.  Y.  522—1510. 
McGraw  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 

VV.  Va.  361—33,  247,  248,  315,  337, 

344,  354,  371. 
McGra.w  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  135  N. 

C.  264—1391. 
McGregor  v.  Gill    (Tenn.),  86   S.  \V. 

318—1217. 
McGregor   v.   Kilgore,   6   Ohio,   358 — 

76,   196,  582. 
McGregor   v.   Oregon   R.    Co.,   50   Or. 

527—201,  476. 
McGrell  v.  Bulialo  Office  B.  Co.,   153 

N.  Y.  265—100,   1097. 
McGrtU    V.    Buflalo    Office    Building 

Co.,  90  Hun    (N.   Y.),  30—100. 
McGrew  v.  Missouri  I'ac.  Ky.  Co.,  230 

Mo.  406—705,  720. 
McGrew  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  109 

Mo.  582—145. 
McGucken   v.    Western    New    York    & 

P.   R.  Co.,   77   Hun    (N.   Y.),   69— 

1063. 
McGuinn    v.    Forbes,   37   Fed.    639— 

1069. 
McGuire  v.  State,  42  Ohio  St.  530— 

17.il,   1733. 
McGuire  v.  Steamship  Golden  Gate,  1 

McAll.    (U.  S.)    104—1148. 
Mclfenry    v.    Railroad    Co.,    4    Harr. 

(Del.)    448—21,    62,    72,   308,    385, 

393,  596. 
Mfllwaine    v.    Tacoma    Rv.,   etc.,    Co. 

(Wash.),  129  Pac.  109:5—977. 
Mclntire  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Bolton,  43  Ohio 

St.  24-1000,  1287. 
Mclntyre  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 

■M  N.  Y.  287—1244,  1602,  1728. 
Mrlntosh    v.   Augusta   &   A.   Ry.   Co., 

87  S.  C.   181  —  1380. 
Mofntosh  V.  OrPL'on  l{   &.  Nav.  Co.,  17 

l.laho.    100-110,  442. 
Mclvcr  V.  Florida  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

110  Ga.  223—1433. 


McKahan    v.    American    Express    Co., 

2U9  Mass.  270 — 423,  864,  893. 
McKain  v.  Baltimore  &  O.  R.  Co.,  65 

W.  Va.  233—1152. 
McKay   v.   2Sew   York   Cent.,   etc.,   R. 
Co.,     50     Hun    (N.   Y.),    563—550, 

734. 
McKay  v.  Ohio  River  Co.,  34  W.  Va. 

65—1391,   1415. 
McKean  v.  Mclvor,  6  Exch.  36 — 210. 
McKee  v.  Hecksher,  10  Daly  (N.  Y.), 

393— 1G4. 
McKee  v.  St.  Louis  Tr.  Co.,  108  Mo. 

App.  470—1619. 
McKenzie   v.   Michigan   Cent.   R.   Co., 

137  Mich.  112—817,  835. 
McKeon   v.   Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   64 

Wis.  477—69. 
McKeon   v.    Citizens    R.    Co.,   42   Mo. 

79—1720. 
McKerall   v.   Atlantic   Coast   Line  R. 

Co.,  76  S.  C.  338—598,  604,  623. 
McKernan   v.   Manhattan   R.   Co.,   65 

Conn.  201-974. 
McKibbin  v.  Wisconsin  Cent.  Ry.  Co., 

100  Minn.  270—1374. 
McKimble  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141 

IMass.  463—999. 
McKimble  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.  Co.,  139 

Mass.  542—990,   1011. 
McKinley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44 

Iowa,  314—1148.   1181,   1409. 
McKinley  v.   Louisville  &  N.   R.  Co., 

137     Ky.     845—1390,     1420,     1430, 

1433. 
McKinney  v.  Jewett,  90  N.  Y.  267 — 

27,  384,  394,  395.  401. 
McKinney  v.  Neal,  1  McLean   (U.  S. ), 

540— l'l29,  1488.  1552. 
McKinstry    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

153  Mo.  App.  546-885. 
McKinstry  v.   St.   Louis  Tr.   Co.,   108 

Mo.  App.  12—1682. 
McKittrick  v.  Greenville  Tr.   Co.,   88 

S.  C.  9—1482. 
McKone  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  51 

Mich.  001-1000.   1120,  1283. 
Mc  Lagan     v.     Chicago,     etc.,    R.     Co. 

(Lnva),  89  N.  W.  233—166,  544. 
McLane    v.    Sharpe,    2    Harr.     (Del  ) 

481  —  1129. 
McLaren    v.    Detroit,   etc..   R.   Co.,   23 

Wis.   138—34:5.  :i05. 
Mcl/fuin   v.  Atlantic,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   H.l 

Ga.   .")04— 1078. 


:ixx 


TA15L1':  UF  CASKS. 
(The  n'f<'n'not>a  aro  to  tlic  pa^s.) 


McT<onn  v.  Atlantic  t'oust  Line  K.  Co., 

81   S.   C.    100—1527.    I(>;i0. 
Mclv<'an  V.   Hurbaiii^,    11   Minn.   277 — 

1154.  ir>o.').  iiui;. 

McLean  v.  Fleming.  L.  R.  2  Sc.  App. 

Ca.>*.   128— 22il. 
MeLean  v.  Kutherford.  8  Mo.  109—10. 
McLeod     V.     (iiiitlier.    80    Kv.    :VJl)— 

1562. 
MeLeod  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co..  72 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   Ill)— 1147,  1182. 
Me.Mahon    v.    t'liieago    City    Ry.    Co., 

2;5!)  HI.  ;?;i4— 1179. 
MeMahon  v.  Chieago  City  Ry.  Co..  143 

111.  App.  008-1170. 
Me.Maiion  v.  Maey,  51  N.  Y.  155—430. 
McMalion    v.    New   Orleans    Ry.,   etc., 

Co.,  127   La.  544— 1C50. 
McMahon  v.  New  York  El.  R.  Co.,  50 

N.   Y.  Super.  Ct.  507—1125. 
McMahon  v.  Northern  Cent.  Ry.  Co., 

39  Md.  438—1591. 
McMahon    v.   Third   Ave.    R.    Co.,    16 

J.  &  S.   (N.  Y.)   282-1026. 
McManus  v.  Chicago  G.  W.  R.  Co.,  138 

Iowa,   150—925,  935. 
McManus  v.   Chicago   G.  W.   Ry.   Co. 

(Iowa),  136  N.  W.  769—723,  1883. 
McManus  v.   Chicago  G.  W.  Ry.  Co. 

(Iowa),  115  N.  W.  919-724." 
McManus  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

4  H.  &  N.  327—405. 
Mc:Master  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  65 

Mir^s.  271-449. 
McMeekin  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  82  S. 

C.  468—621,  623. 
McMelon  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  126 

La.  606—1009. 
McMillan    v.    American    Express    Co 

(Towa),  98  N.  W.  629—890. 
^Mc^Iillan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  147 

Iowa,  596—877. 
McMillan  v.  Michigan  Southern,  etc., 

R.  Co..  16  Mich.  79— 385,  416,  425, 

427,  4.32,  453,  456,  578,  739. 
McMorrin    v.    Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co. 

(Can.),  1  Ont.  Law  Rep.  561—466, 

469,  1786,  1787,  1790. 
McMurrav  v.  Fargo,  131  N.  Y.  Supp. 

884 — 937. 
McMurrv  v.  Pullman's  Palace  Car  Co., 

SO  Mo\  App.  619—64,  66. 
McMurtrv   v.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

67  Miss.  601-1014. 


.McNally  v.  Mitropolilan  St.  Ry.  Co., 

145  Mo.  App.   127—1074. 
.McNaniara  v.  Great  Nortiiern  11.  Co., 

01    Minn.  290—991. 
McXaniara  v.   St.   Louis   Tr.  Co.,    106 

Mo.  Ap]).  349—1020. 
McNaughLon  v.  Mcliirl,  20  Mont.  124 

—  1732,  1734. 
McNeill  V.  Durham,  etc.,   K.  Co.,   135 

N.  C.  082—948,  1033. 
McNeill  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  202  U.  S. 

543—1894. 
McNichol   V.   Pacific   Express   Co.,    12 

Mo.  App.  401—203. 
McNulta  V.  En.sch,  134  111.  46—1073. 
McNulty  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  182 

Pa.  St.  479—1005. 
McPadden  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 

44  N.  Y.  478—315,  1106,  1118,  1123. 
McPheeters  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

45  Mo.  22—6. 

McPherson    v.    Co.v,    86   N.    Y.    479 — 

350. 
McPherson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

97  Mo.  253—1123. 
McQuade   v.   Manhattan   Ry.   Co.,    53 

N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  91—1231,  1238. 
McQueen  v.  Central,  etc.,  Pac.  R.  Co., 

.30  Kan.  689—1003. 
McQuerrv  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 

117    Mo.   App.  255—1413,    1433. 
McQuilken  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  64 

Cal.  46,3—1567,  1598.  1600. 
McQuillcn  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  50 

Cal.  7—1540. 
McRae   v.   Metropolitan   St.   Ry.   Co., 

125  Mo.  App.  562—1528. 
McRae  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88 

N.   C.  526—1025.   1020,   1069,   1070. 
McSwegan  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,   7 

App.   Div.   301—272. 
McVeagh  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

N.  M.   (Gild)   205—375. 
McVeety  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co..  45 

Minn'.  268—988,  1017. 
Meade     v.     Boston     Elev.     Rv.     Co. 

(Mass.),  70  N.  E.  197—1086. 
Mearns  v.  Central  R.  Co.,   163   N.  Y. 

108—1224. 
Mears   v.   New  York,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   75 

Conn.  171—472. 
Mears    v.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

(Conn.),  52  Atl.  610—273,  439,  ,570, 

771. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


clxxi 


Mechanics',   etc.,   Bank   v.   Gordon,   5 

La.  Ann.  606—110. 
Medbury   v.   New  York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

26    Barb.    (N.   Y.)    564—357,    615, 

617,  624. 
Meegan   v.   Metropolitan    St.   R.   Co., 

101  Mo.  App.  45—1495. 
Meeker  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.   Lo.,   162 

Fed.  354—1773,  18S9. 
Meesel  v.  Lynn  &  B.  R.  Co.,  8  Allen 

(Mass.),  234—1639,   1641. 
Meetze   v.    Southern   Express   Co.,   91 

S.  C.  379—1979. 
Mehalek  v.  Minneapolis,  etc..  R.  Co., 

105  Minn.  128—969. 
Meier  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  64  Pa. 

St.  225 — 49,  1106,  1114,  1118,  1215, 

1512. 
Meier  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  4  U.  C. 

C.  P.  543—1505. 

Meisner    y.    Detroit,    etc.,    Ferry    Co., 

154  Mich.  545—60,  1138. 
Meister  v.  VVoolverton,  140  App.  Div. 

(X.   Y.)    926—1305.    1335. 
Meister   v.    Woolverton,   67    Misc.    R. 

(X.  Y.)    167—113. 
Melbourne  v.   Louisville,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

88  Ala.  44.3—7,  240,  243,  730. 
Melendy  v.  Barbour,  78  Va.  544 — 889. 
Mellier  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Transp.  Co., 

14  Mo.  App.  281—81,  551. 
Mellor   V.    Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.,    105 

Mo.   45.5—1049. 
Mellquist  v.  The  Wasco,  53  Fed.  546— 

98.'3.  990,  991,  992. 
Meloche  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   116 

Mich.   69—178,    189. 
Melody  v.  Great  X'orthern  Ry.  Co.,  25 

D.  C.  606—1880. 

Meloy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Iowa), 

37  X.  W.  33.5-1556. 
Melton   V.  Birmingham   Ry.,  etc.,  Co., 

153  Ala.  95—997.  1002. 
Memphis,    etc..    Packet    Co.    v.    Abell 

(Ky.),    30    S.    W.    658—594. 
Memphis,  rtc..  Packet  Co.  v.  McCool 

S3  Ind.  392—1487. 
Mfmphis.   etc.,    R.   Co.   y.   Benson.   85 

Tcnn.  627—1069,   1265,  1558. 
Memphis,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Green,    52 

Miss.  779—1721.  1723. 
Memphis,  etc..  R.   Co.  v    TInllnway,   9 

Haxt.    (Tf-nn.)    188 — 483.   4HH. 
Memphis,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Rorves,    10 

Wall.   (U.  S.)    170—339,  372. 


Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Salinger,  46 

Ark.  628—1638. 
Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Steel   (Ark.), 

156  S.  W.  182—1472. 
Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stringfellow, 

44  Ark.  322—1226,  1G73. 
Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whitfield,  44 

Miss.   466—1125,    1232,    12o3,    1234, 

1246,  1702,   1715,   1723. 
Memphis  Xews  Pub.  Co.  v.  Soutliern 

Ry.  Co.,  110  Tenn.  684—709,  718. 
Memphis     St.     Rv.     Co.     v.     Graves 

(Tenn.),  75  S.  W.  729—1393,  1419. 
Memphis    St.   R.    Co.     v.     Shaw,    110 

Tenn.  467—1246,   1247,  1250. 
Menaugh  v.  Bedford  Belt  Ry.  Co.,  157 

Ind.  20—1041. 
Mendenhall  y.  Atchison,  etc.,  R,  Co., 

66  Kan.  438—1017. 
Mensing    y.    Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co., 

117  Mich.  606—1242. 
Menzell  y.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Dill. 

(U.  S.)    531—518,  520. 
Mercantile  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Chase.   1 

E.  D.  Smith    (X.  Y.),  115—40,  52, 

81,  429. 
Mercantile    Trust    Co.    y.    Columbus, 

etc.,  ii.  Co.,  90  Fed.   148    (1898)  — 

1867. 
Merchant  v.  South  Chicago  C.  R.  Co., 

104    111.  App.    122—1216. 
Merchants'   &  Miners'  Transp.   Co.   v. 

Eichberg,    109    Md.    211—294,    507, 

658. 
Merohants'  &  Miners'  Transp.   Co.  v. 

Moore  &  Co.,  124  Ga.  482—276. 
Merchants'  &  Miners'   Transp.   Co.   y. 

United  States,   199  Fed.  202-1972. 
Merchants'    Bank    y.    Union    R.,    etc., 

Co.,  69  N.  Y.  374—219,  232. 
Merchants'   Cotton  Press,  etc..  Co.   v. 

Insurance    Co.    of    Xorth    America, 

151   U.  S.  368—216. 
Merchants'  Despatch  Co.  y.  Smith,  70 

111.  542—310. 
Merchants'  Despatch,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Com. 

forth,  3  Colo.  280—52,  418,  1457. 
Merchants'     Despatch,     etc.,     Co.     v. 

Moore,   88   111.    1.36—379,   381,   463, 

701. 
Merchants'    Despatch    Transp.    Co.    v. 

Bloch,    86    Tenn.    392—52,   53.   458, 

571.  744,  707,  1456. 
MiTclmnts'    Despatch   Transp.    Co.    y. 


clxxii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(TTie  referenoca  are  to  the  page*.) 


BollM.    80    lU.    473—53,   626,    527, 

771.  77'^. 
Mcrclmnts'    DespaUh    Triinsp.    Co.    v. 

Kuittiuiann,    14»    HI.    GG— 433,    445, 

44i). 
Mercnants'    Despati-h    Traiisp.    Co.    v. 

Halluck,  64  HI.  284—240,  250,  380. 
Meroliaiits'    Dospatoh    Transp.    Co.    v. 

Hatcly,   14  Cau.  Sup.  Ct.  572—744, 

773. 
Merclianta*   Despatch   Transp.    Co.   v. 

Joist iiiji.  89  111.   153— 433,  455. 
Meroliants'    Despatch    Transp.    Co.    v. 

Kahn.  70  111.  520—134. 
Merchants'    Despatch    Transp.    Co.    v. 

Lcysor.  89   111.  43—433.  455. 
Merchants'    Despatch    Transp.    Co.    v. 

Merriam,  111  Ind.  5—213,  25G,  407. 
Mercliants'    Despatch    Transp.    Co.    v. 

Theilbar,  8C  111.  71— 433.  455.  463. 
Merchants'  Union  v.  Northern  Pac.  R. 

Co.,  4  Int.  Com.  R.  183—1827. 
Merchants'  Wharfhnat  Assoc,  v.  Wood, 

64  Miss.  GGl— 453,  737,  776. 
Mering  v.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  161  Cal. 

297-500. 
Meriwether  v.  Quincy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128 

Mo.  App.   647—887,  931,  932,  935, 

940,  1238. 
Merriam  v.  Hartford,  etc..  R.  Co.,  20 

Conn.  354—116,  172,  179,  180,  184, 

185. 
Merrick    v.    Brainard,    38    Barb.    (N. 

Y.)   574— 5G,  531. 
Merrick  v.  Gordon,  20  N.  Y.  96—780. 
Merrielees  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  163  Mo. 

470—1280. 
Merrill  v.  American  Express  Co.,  62 

N.  H.  514—430,  457,  483. 
Merrill  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,   139  Mass. 

23S— 1017. 
Merrill  v.  Grinnell,  30  N.  Y.  594.  619 

—44.   1293,   1294.   1295,   1296,  1300. 
Merrill  v.  Metropolitan   Co.    (N.  Y.), 

73    App.    Div.    (N.   Y.)    401—1217, 

12''-''> 
Merrill  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  158 

111.  App.  38—979. 
Merrill  v.  Pacific  Trans.  Co.,  131  Cal. 

58.3—1340. 
Merriman  v.  Great  Northern  Express 

Co.,  63  Minn.  543—38,  333. 
Merritt   v.    Earle.   29   N.   Y.    115—27, 

29.   163,  .306,  307,  308,  372,  550. 
Merritt    v.    Old    Colony,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

93  Mass.    (11  Allen)    80—192,   193. 


Merritt    Creamery    Co.     v.     Atchisoa, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  Mo.  App.  149—312. 
Merritt    Creamery    Co.     v.     Atchison 

etc.,    Ky.   Co.,    128  Mo.   App.  420 — 

2S8. 
Mejshon    v.    Hobcnsack,   22    N.   J.    L. 

372—19,  287,  1136. 
Merz  V.  Chica^'o  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Co.,  86 

Minn.  33—329,  302. 
Merwin  v.  Butler,   17  Conn.   138—62, 

249. 
Mcrwin  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  48  Hun 

(N.  Y.)  608-1038. 
^le-cimeck   v.    Brooklyn,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

125   App.   Div.   205—1484. 
McsiTole  V.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  57 

Hun,  591—1692. 
Messenger  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  37 

N.  J.  L.  531—41,  117,  121,  158,  160. 
Messenger  v.  Valley  City  St.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  21  N.  D.  82—974. 
Messerno  v.  Nashville  R.  Co.,  1  Sneed. 

(Tcnn.)    220—1270. 
Metcalf  V.  Baker,  2  J.  &  S.    (N.  Y.) 

10—1209. 
Metcalf  V.  McLaughlin,  122  Mass.  84 

—284. 
Metcalf  V.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co., 

150  Ala.  240—1005. 
Metcalf  V.   ^azoo  &  M.  V.  R.  Co.,  97 

Mi.ss.  455 — 978. 
Metropolitan   Bank  v.  Van  Dyke,  27 

N.  Y.  400,  510—1730,  1741. 
Metropolitan  R.  Co.  v.  Collins,  1  App. 

Cas.   (D.  C.)   38,3—1563,  1505. 
Metropolitan  R.  Co.  v.  Falvey,  5  App. 

D.  C.  170—1252. 
Metropolitan  R.  Co.  v.  Falvey   (D.  C. 

App.).  23  Wash.  L.  Rep.  53—1114. 
Metropolitan    R.    Co.    v.    Rnashall,    3 

App.     D.     420—1470,     1477,     1489, 

1517.   1040. 
Metropolitan    St.    Rv.    Co.   v.    Hanson 

(Kan.).  72  Pac.  75—1080. 
Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Hanson,  1 

St.  Ry.  Rep.   234—1214. 
Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ryan,  GO 

Kan.  538-1692. 
Metropolitan    Trust    Co.    of   N.    Y.   v. 

Toledo,  etc..  R.  Co.,  107  Fed.  628— 

882,  886,  889. 
Metropolitan    West   Side   El.   Ry.   Co. 

V.    Sutherland,    139    111.   App.    85— 

989,   1274. 
Mettlestadt  v.  Ninth   Ave.   R.   Co.,  4 

Robt.    (N.  Y.)   377—1614. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


clxxiii 


Metz  V.  Buffalo  Corry  &  P.  R.  Co.,  58 

N.  Y.  61—45. 
Metz  V.   California   Southern   R.  Co., 

86  Cal.  329—1294. 
Metz  V.  St.  Paul  Citv  R.  Co.   (Minn.), 

92  N.  W.  502— lol9. 
Meuer  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   5   S. 

Dak.  568—1451,  1452,  1453,  1460. 
Meux  V.  Great  Eastern  R.  Co.,  2  Q.  B. 

387   (C.  U.  895)— 1375. 
Mexican   Cent.   Ry.   Co.   v.   DeRosear, 

109  S.  W.  949—1297,  1385. 
Mexican  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Lauricella,  87 

Tex.  277—1098,  1495. 
Mexican  Nat.  Ry.  v.  Savage  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  41  S.  W.  663—801,  1852. 
Mexican   Nat.   R.   Co.   v.  Ware    (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    60     S.     W.    343—952, 

1294,  1336. 
Mever  v.  Atlantic  Coast  L.  R.  Co.,  92 

S.  C.   101—1378. 
Meyer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Wis. 

56ti — 396.  559. 
Mever  v.   Dresser,   15   C.   B.    (N.   S.) 

6'46— 229. 
Meyer  v.   Harnden's  Express   Co.,  24 

How.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)    290 — 453. 
Meyer  v.   Lemciie,  31    Ind.   208 — 262. 
Mever  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  2  Neb. 

320—1122. 
Mever  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  21  N.  Y. 

Super.  Ct.  305—976. 
Mever  v.    St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   84 

Fed.    116—1141,    1142,    1187,    1211, 

1247. 
Meyer  v.   Vicksburg,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   41 

La.  Ann.  639—180,  184,  377. 
Mevers  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  120 

Mo.  App.  22S — 442. 
Meverstcin  v.  Barber,  L.  R.  44  L.  317 

—231. 
Miami   Powder   Co.  v.   Port  Royal   & 

W.   C.   Ry.    Co..   38   S.   C.   78—280, 

201,  292,  590,  591. 
Michaels   v.   Now  York   Cent.   R.   Co., 

30  N.  Y.  564—27,  53,  308,  372,  574, 

736,  745,  837. 
Michie  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  151 

Fod.  694—1804. 
Michigan    TVnt.    R.    Co.    v.    Boyd,    91 

III,   268—446.   449. 
Mif'iic'nn  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Burrows.  33 

Mif.1,     6—1.'?.';.    136,    138,    163,    315, 

355,  361,  373,  735. 


Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  1  111.  App.  399—332. 
Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Coleman.  28 

Mich.   440—101,    1213,    1237,    1259, 

1607. 
Michigan   Cent.   R.   Co.  v.  Curtis,   80 

111.  324 — 34,  343,  344,  736. 
Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hale,  6  Mich. 

24.3—392.  400,  430,  456,  776. 
Michigan   Cent.   R.   Co.   v.   Lantz,   32 

Mich.  502—406,  776. 
Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    Mineral 

Springs  Mfg.  Co.,  16  Wall.   (U.  S.) 

318—376,   402,  406,  426,  430,   730, 

734,  774,  1362. 
Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Philips.  60 

111.  190—226,  232. 
Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.   v.    Smithson, 

45  Mich.  212—122. 
Micliigan    Cent.    R.    Co.  v.   Ward,   2 

Mich.  538 — 255,  406,  456. 
Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carrow.  73 

111.    348—1294,     1298,     1300,     1301, 

1306. 

Michigan,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Caster,    13 

Ind.  164—597,  739. 
Michigan,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.    Shurtz,    7 

Mich.  515—171. 
Michigan    Southern,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Bivens,  13  Ind.  263 — 256,  261,  270. 
Michigan    Southern,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Caster,   13   Ind.    164—597,  739. 
Michigan    Southern,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Day,  20  111.  (10  Peck.)  375—242. 
Michigan    Southern,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Day,  20  111.  375—196,  343,  345,  752. 

755. 
Michigan    Southern,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Heaton,  37   Ind.  448 — 455,  493. 
Michigan  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  McDon- 

ough,  21  Mich.  165 — 126,  823,  838 

785. 

Michigan    Southern,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Shurtz,  7   Mich.  515 — 83,  376,  4I_>. 
Michigan    Southern    R.   Co.   v.   Oelun 

56  111.  29.3—1292,  1300. 
Midbury  v.  Now  York,  etc..  R.  Co.,  20 

Barb.    (N.   Y.)    564 — 506. 
Middle,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Juroy,   HI   U 

S.  584 — 581. 
Midland  Nat.  Bank  v.  Missouri   Pac 

i;.  Co.,  132  Mo.  402—221.  231. 
Midland  Nat.   Bank  v.  Missouri,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  1  Mo.  App.  Rep.  417— 22o! 


clxxii 


lABl.E  OF  CAMiifcJ. 
(Tlic  nMoroiK'os  are  to  tho  pages.) 


Midland    Valley    R.    Co.    v.    K/.oll,    20 

Ok\.  40— SSG. 
Midliiml  Vallov  U.  Co.  v.  E/.ell  (Okl.K 

12!>  Tao.  7:U— 851. 
Midland     \allt>v     R.     Co.     v.     George 

(Okl.).  127  Pae.  871— 8(U5. 
Midlaiiil   Vallov    R.   Co.   v.   Hamilton, 

84  Ark.  81—1157.  1507. 
Midland    Valley    R.    Co.    v.    HolTnian 

Coal  Co..  01  Ark.  180—136. 
Midland   Vallov    R.   Co.   v.    Piigh.   33 

Okl.   (548—824,  038. 
Midland  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  State  (Okl.) 

133   Tac.   27—1073. 
Miorson  v.   Hope,  2  Sweeny    (N.  Y.) 

561—328.  .308. 
Miles  V.  James.   1  McCord  L.    (S.  C.) 

157—50.  75,  160. 
Miles  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  00  Ark. 

485-1483.  1540. 
Miley   v.   Norttiorn   Pac.   Rv.   Co.,  41 

Mont.  51—1470. 
Miliman  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc..  R. 

Co..  6  T.  &  C.  (N.  Y.)  585—1500. 
Milkerson  v.  Corrigan  Consol.  St.  R. 

Co..  26  Mo.  App.   144—1404. 
Millard  v.  Missouri,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  86 

N.   Y.  441—1300. 
Miller  v.   Atlanta,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,   144 

\.  C.  54.5—1631. 
Miller  v.   Baltimore,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   89 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)   457—1704,  1708. 
Miller    v.    Brooklyn    Heights    R.    Co., 
127  App.  Div. '(N.  Y.)    197—1432, 
1434. 
Miller  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.,  124 
App.  Div.   (X.  Y.)   537—062,  1007, 
1173. 
Miller  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Neb. 

458—897. 
Miller  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  1  Mo. 

App.   Rep.  474—350,  539,   541. 
Miller  v.  Cornwall  R.  Co.,  154  Pa.  St. 

473—1048. 
!^Iiller  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Ga. 

56.3—002.  095.  696,  701. 
Miller   v.    Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   90 

X.  Y.  430—569. 
Miller  v.  King,  166  N.  Y.  394—1704. 
Miller  v.  Mansfield,  112  Mass.  260— 

16,  405,  413.  627,  664. 
Miller    v.    Metropolitan    St.    Ry.    Co., 
125   Mo.   App.   414—1525. 


Miller  v.  Missouri,  K.  &   T.   Ry.  Co., 

157    Mo.    Api>.    638-534,   910. 
Miller    v.    Oeoaii    Steamship    Co.,    118 

\.    Y.    190— lOSl,    1.504,    1.505. 
:\!ilh'r  V.  Pendleton,  8  Gray    (Mass.), 

574—59. 
Miller  v.  Railroad  Co.,  88  Ga.  563— 

627. 
Miller   v.    South    Carolina  R.   Co.,   33 

S.  C.  359—775. 
Miller   v.   South   Covington   &,   C.   St. 
Rv.  Co.,  25  Ky.  L.  Rep.  207—1224. 
Miller  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  69  S.  C. 

116—1707. 
Miller   v.    Steam    Navigation    Co.,    10 

N.  Y.  431—310,  313,  775. 
Miller  v.  St.  Louis  R.  Co.,  5  Mo.  App. 

471—1506,  1494,  16.57. 
Miller   v.    St.    Paul    City   R.    Co.,    66 

Minn.    102—983. 
Miller  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Tex. 

518—269,  741,  779,  780,  781. 
Miller  v.  Truesdale,   56  Minn.   274 — 

1520. 
Miller   v.   United   Rys.   Co.,    165   Mo. 

App.  528—1496. 
Millett  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  211 

Mass.  486—962,  1007. 
Milligan  v.   Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,   17 

U.  C.  C.  P.  115—267. 
Milliman  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  66  N.  Y.  642—1140,  1195,  1219, 
1220,  1230,  1403,  1.596. 
Millins   V.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,   93 

Miss.  184—1392. 
Millon  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  21  Ont. 

App.  Rep.  404—84,  386. 
Mi  Hoy  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  23  Ont. 

Rep.  454—83,  376. 
Mills  V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

168    Fed.   900—1928. 

Mills  V.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  45  N. 

Y.  622—189,  241,  3.54,  379,  384,  406, 

747.  775. 

Mills  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Tex.), 

50  S.  W.  874,  57  S.  W.  201—1613. 

Mills  V.  National  Steamship  Co.,  5  N. 

Y.  Supp.  258—260. 
Mills  V.  Seattle,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Wash. 

20—432,    1435,   1440. 
Mills  V.   Southern   Ry.  Co.,   82   S.   C. 

242—251. 
Mills  V.  Weir.  82  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.) 
306—721,  765. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


clxxv 


Milne  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15.5  Mo. 

App.  465 — r72,   185,   190. 
Milne  v.  Douglass,  4  McCrary  (U.  S.) 

368—596.   780. 
Milnor  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 

N.  Y.  363—1362. 
Miltimore  v.  Cliicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 

Wis.    190— .551,  561,  804. 
Milton  V.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Colo. 

App.   307—316,   454. 
Milwaukee  Chamber   of  Commerce  v, 

Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   7  Int.   Com. 

Rep.  48—1794. 
Milwaukee  Chamber  of  Commerce  v. 

Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  Rep. 

.393—1790,  1794,  1798,  1829. 
Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Arms,  91 

U.  S.  489—6,  549,  611,  1267,  1460, 

1723. 
Milwaukee,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.   Fairchild, 

6  Wis.  403—386.  407. 
Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Finney,  10 

Wis.   388—1149,   1563,   1725. 
Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hunter,  11 

Wis.   160—1545. 
Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  74 

111.  197—449,  743. 
Milwaukee  Malt  Ext.  Co.  v.  Chicago, 

etc.,   R.   Co.,   73   Iowa,   98—129. 
Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Home  Ins; 

Co.,   55   Minn,  236—436,  546. 
Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Strain,  81 

111.  504—908. 
Minneapolis  St.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Odegaard, 

182  Fed.  56—1498. 
Minnesota,  etc..   Cattle  Co.  v.   Atchi- 
son, etc.,  R.  Co.,  135  Fed.  135—312. 
Minock   v.   Detroit   R.   Co.,   97   Mich. 

425—1226. 
Minor  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Wis. 

40—1353,   1531. 
Minor    v.    Lcliigh    Valley    R.    Co.,    21 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   307—1254,  1256. 
Minter  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Mo. 

App.    130-836,   896. 
Minter  v.  Pacific   R.  Co.,  41   Mo.  508 

—185,  187,   1291,   1337. 
Minter  v.  Southern  Kan.sas  R.  Co.,  50 

Mo.  App.  282—538. 
Minturn  v.  Warren  Ins.  Co.,  84  Mass. 

(2  Allen)  Sf — 653. 
Mires  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.,  134 

.Mo.  App.  379—442.  514,   1837. 
Missimer  v.  I'liiladelpliia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

17  Phila.   (Pa.)    172—1106,  1187. 


Mississippi  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  KennedV, 

41    Miss.   671,  678—41,   1294,   1297, 

1298,  1300,  1302. 
Mississippi  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  40 

Miss.  45—1553. 
Mississippi,   etc.,   R.  Co.  v.   Harrison, 

66   Miss.   419—1244. 
Mississippi  Val.  Transp.  Co.  v.   Fos- 

dick  Mann  Unrep.  Cas.    (La.)    3 — 

626. 
Missouri  &  N.  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Pullcn,  90 

Ark.  182—815. 
Missouri  Coal  &  Oil  Co.  v.  Hannibal, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Mo.  84-187. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Aycock   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),   135  S.  W.   198—868. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beard,  34  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  188—177. 
Missouri,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Belcher,   88 

Tex.  549—616. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belcher  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  41  S.  W.  706—856. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blalack  (Tex. 

..Civ.  App.),  147  S.  W.  559—1052. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  156  S.  W.  519—905. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown   (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),    135   S.   W.   1076—994, 

1442. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bvrd    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  89  S.  W.  991—981. 
Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Bvrne,    100 

Fed.  359—828. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bvrne,  3  tieft. 

T.  740—928.  '  '"' 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cape  G.,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  1  Inst.  Com.  R.  607—1776. 
Missouri,    etc.,    Ry.    Co.    v.    Capital 

Compress  Co.   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  110 

S.  W.  1014—073. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carlisle  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  145  S.  W.  65,3—1418. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carpenter,  52 

lex.  Civ.  App.  58.5 — 599,  601. 
Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Carpenter 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  114  S.  W.  900— 

1924. 
Misscniri,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Carter,  9  Tex, 

Civ.  App.  077—438,  446.  898. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cliittim,  24 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  599—852,  856. 
Missouri,   etc..    Ry.    Co.   v.    Clark,    35 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  189—806. 
Mis.souri    R.   Co.   v.   Cold)    (Tex.   Civ. 

App.),  36  S.  W.  500—503. 


clxxvi 


TAl'.l.K  Ol    CASKS. 
(Tlie  rt'fori'iicm  arc  to  tlio  pii^s.) 


Missouri,    etc.,    U.    Co.    v.    Diirliu-rton 
(lex.   cMv.    Aj-p.).   30   S.   W.   2ol— 

llissomi.  etc..  U.  Co.  v.  Davidson.  25 

IVx.  Civ.  App.  l;U— 314. 
Mi.-^souri.  ftc.  \\.  Co.  v.  Davis,  '24  Ok\. 

«77      SS;!.  001. 
Missouri,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Dciiu-iit   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  116  N.  W.  U:^")— f.0!». 
Missouri,    etc..    K.    Co.    v.    Dcinorc    & 
Coiiiriu    (Tox.    Civ.    App. ),    145    S. 
\V.^V)J;<— 1!»04. 
Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Dihvorth.  84 

'lex.   327— '.lOS. 
Missouri,  etc.,   K.  Co.  v.  Early-Cloni- 
ciit  iJrain  Co.   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  124 
S.  \V.  1015— :?C(;. 
Missouri,  etc..  K.  Co.  v.  Flood,  35  Tex. 

Civ.  App.   197—1105,   1107.   1450. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flood    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  79  S.  VV.  1106—1728. 
Missouri,  dc,  R.  Co.  v.  Fookcs   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  40  S.  W.  858 — 1858. 
Missouri,   etc..   R.   Co.  v.   Frogley,   75 

Kan.  440—883. 
Missouri,  etc..  K.  Co.  v.  Fry,  79  Kan. 

21—597.  864. 
Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Fry,  74  Kan. 

546—864.  883. 
Missouri,  etc..  l\.  Co.  v.  Gerren   (Tex. 
Civ.  App.  3,   121   S.  W.  905—1173, 
1700. 
Ifclissouri.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Gober   (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),  125  S.  W.  38.3—909. 

Missouri,  etc..  K.  Co.  v.  Golson    ('lex. 

Civ.  App.)    133  S.  W.  456—868,930. 

Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Graves   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  16  S.  \V.  102—144.  145, 

149.  4S4. 

Missouri,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.    Haber,    169 

U.  S.  613—1752.   1894. 
Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.   Hancock,  26 

Okl.  254—787.  883,  884,  894. 
:Missouri.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ilailey    (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),   156  S.  W.   1119—1386. 
Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Harriman 
Bros..  227  U.  S.  657—473,  480,  500, 
891.  892.  1914. 
Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Harriman 
Bros.    (Tex.  Civ.' App.),  128  S.  W. 
•i;;2— 1912. 
Missouri,    etc..    R.    Co.   v.    Hayes,    74 

Kan.  880 — 826. 
Mi»ouri,    etc.,    R.    Oo.    t.    Hebbitt.<i 


(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  109  S.  W.  228— 

1157,   1669. 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Herring  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  130  S.  W.   1069—1417. 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.   v.   Hood    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),   120  S.  W.  236—901. 
Missouri,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.    Hope    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  149  S.  W.  1185—968. 
Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Hopkins 
iT.x.  Civ.  App.),  113  S.  W.  306— 
617. 
Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Huff    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  81  S.  W  52.5—1513. 
Missouri,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Huff    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  78  S.  W.  249—1056. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    JnterstaU? 

Commerce     C<immission,     164     Fed. 

645—1870.   1872. 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jarmon    (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    141    S.   W.    1.55—1909. 

I\lissouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Kirkbani.  63 

Kan.  255—880. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kyser    (Tex. 

(  iv.  App.),  95  S.  W.  747—856. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  TjciboUl   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  55  S.  W.  368—808. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.     v.     Lewellen 

Bros.    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),   Ill    S.  W. 

77o_7s6.  856. 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Light    (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),   117    S.   VV.    1058—869. 

Missouri,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Martino,   2 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  634—1417. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mazzie   (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  68  S.  W.  56—732,  750. 
Missouri,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   McFadden, 

89  Tex.   138—119,  216,  442. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLaughlin, 

29  Okl.  345—442. 
Jilissouri,    etc.,    R.     Co.     v.     Mclean 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  118  S.  W.   161— 
566. 
Miss(mri.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Meek,  33  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  47—1356. 
Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Miller,    8 

Tex.   Civ.  App.  241—1062. 
M'iss(juri.    etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Mitchell 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  105  S.  W.  827— 
1418. 
Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.'    v.    l\Tit<>heIl 
(Tex.   Civ.   App.),   79    S.   W.   94— 
1214. 
Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Morgan 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  138  S.  W.  210 
—  1434. 


TABLE  0¥  CAtJES. 


clxxvii 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Ck).     v.     ^lorgan 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  108  S.  W.  724— 

1550. 
Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    New    Era 

Milling  Co.,  79  Kan.  435 — 705,  715. 
Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Olive    (Tex. 

Liv.  App.),  23   S.  W.  526—363. 
Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Orton,    67 

Kan.   »4« — 1206. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Overfield,   19 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  440—1005. 
Missouri,   etc.,   R.  Co.   v.   Pope    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),   149  S.  W.   1185—1179. 
Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Price^    48 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  210—1005. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Price    (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    106    S.    W.    700—960, 

1158. 
Missouri,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   PuUen,   90 

Ark.  182-888. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Quinn    (Ti'x. 

Civ.  App.),  29  S.  W.  404—600,  601. 
Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Raney    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  99  S.  VV.  589-1160. 
Missouri,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Rich    (Tex. 

Oiv.    App.),    112    S.    W.    114—831, 

867. 
Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Richardson 

(Tex.   Civ.   App.),    131    S.   W.   1139 

—  1417. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rogers   (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),    141   S.   W.    1011- 79i), 

928. 
Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Sanders,    12 

Tex.  (  ir.  App.  5 — 1561. 
Missouri,  etc..  K.  Co.  v.  Selev,  31  Ti'x. 

Civ.   App.    158—206,  234, '277,  282. 
Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Siirinionri 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  33  S.  \V.  1090— 

987. 
Missouri,  etc.,   R.   Ck).  v.  Sinclair,   77 

Kan.  228—1981. 
Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.    Stiiitli.    152 

Fed.   6(18—1390,    13'.)9. 
Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Sii  cil,    85 

Ark.  293—789,   897,  940. 
Missouri,    etc..     R.     Co.      v.      Sprolcs 
(T.-x.    Civ.    App.),    92    S.    \V.    40— 

005. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stark   Grain 

Co.,   103  Tex.  542—360,   1903. 
Mi.H^^ouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stone    (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    125    S.    W.   587—1524. 
MittRouri,    etc..    R.    Co.     v.     Tarsvater 


(Tox.   Civ.   App.),   75   S.  W.  937— 

1712. 
Missouri,    etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Trinity 

County    Lumber    Co.,    1    Tex.    Civ. 

App.   553—525,   628,    1833. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tripis    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),   117   S.  VV.   199—565. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Truskett,  186 

C.   S.  479—580,  596,  835,  859. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Truskett,  104- 

Fed.  728—363. 
Missouri,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Turley,   85 

Fed.  369—1601. 
Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     United 

States,  178  Fed.  15—812,   19S4. 
Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Vandiver 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  122  S.  W.  955— 

614.  I 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walden   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  46   S.  W.  87—1245.        ', 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walston,  133 

Pac.  42—502. 
Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Weaver,    16 

Kan.  456—1147. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Webb,  20  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  431—599. 
[Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Wells,    28 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  304—907. 
Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Wells,    22 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  255—914,  919. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wells    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  58  S.  W.  842—535. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  West  (OkL), 

134  Pac.  655—1472, 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  91 

Tex.  255—966,  974. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  81  S.  W.   1187—548. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Wood    (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),   31    S.   W.   237—798. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woods   (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    117    S.    W.    196—369, 

842,  868. 
^Missouri    Furnace   Co.   v.   Abend,    107 

111.   44—1542. 
Missouri  K.  &  T.  Ry.   Co.  v.  Clifton 
(T.?x.   Oiv.  App.),  80  S.   W.  .386— 

601,  609. 
Missouri    K.   &   T.   R.   Co.   v.   TTarris 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  138  S.  W.  108.5— 

593. 
Missouri,  K.  &  T.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hutch- 
ings,    S.alv   &   Co.,    78   Kan.    758— 

536. 


dxiviii 


lABLE  OF  CASES. 
(Tlic  references  ::re  ta  tin-  luiges.) 


Missouri,  K.   &  T.    H.'- •   ^^«-   v.    Kv^-r 

&    Sulheilaud,    06    iV\.    I  iv.    -vi'l'- 

333 — 3oS. 
Missouri    Pae.    R.    Co.    v.    AiUoii,    1  1 

Tex.  37;i— 103S,   17  IS. 
Missouri  Tac.  K.  Lo.  v.  lUvni'-'s,  2  IV.k. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.   §  575 — •'1>.  •>>'•••• 
Missouri    Pac.   R.   e\i.   v.   13revHhng,_  4 

Tox.    App.    Civ.    Cas.    §     134— o» 4, 

Missouri  Pac.  U.  Co.  v.  Carpenter,  44 

Kan.  237 — 34  1. 
Mis^.ouri  I'ac.  K.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

U.   Co.,  '25   Fed.   317— 51,  20il,  3.D, 

3S7.  3112. 
Missouri     PttL'.    R.     Co.     v.    Clulders 

riVx.  Civ.  App.),  2\)   S.  W.  530— 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  C'..ina  Mfg. 

Co..  79  Tex.  20 — 43S,  571,  577,  579. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    L oilier,    02 

Tex.  31s — 1554. 
Missouri  l\ic.  R.  Co.  v.  Cornwall.  70 
Tex.  011—33,  34,  354,  45U,  480,  819, 

890,  1450. 
Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Crratli,    3 

Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.   §  84—741. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Curtis,  3  Tox. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  311—1201. 
Mi--ouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Divlnncy,  06 

Kan.   770—1150,   1109. 
Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.  v.  Douglass,  2 

Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  28—190,  568, 

573. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Edwards,  78 

Tex.   307-516.   S33,  920. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Evans,  71  Tex. 

301—1197,   1403. 
Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.   v.    Fagan,    72 

Tox.    127—430,   516,  591,   624,   816. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Fugan  (Tex.), 

9  S.  W.  749—33. 
ifissouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Fagan    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  27  S.  W.  887,  29  S.  W. 

1110—822,  861. 
iIi«souri   Pac.  R.   Co.  v.   Fcnnell,   79 

T<x.  44S— 898. 
]«iI;>souri   Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Foreman,  73 

Tex.  311—1013,  1476,  1534. 
Missouri     Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Foreman 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  46   S.  W.  834— 

1608. 
M'i=.«ouri   Pac.  R.   Co.   v.   German,  84 

Tex.  141—585. 


.Ml^uuri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.^  Graves.  2 
I   x.  .\|ip.  civ.  Cas.  §  075 — 785. 

M-ssuuri  I'ae.  R.  Co.  v.  Groesbeck 
(Tex.   Civ.   App.),   24    S.    VV.   702— 

Missouri   Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  00  lu-d. 

S08— 119,  341. 
Missouri    Pac.   R.   Co.  v.  Harnionsoii, 

4  r.:x.  Civ.  App.  Cas.  §  91—149. 
Missouri    Pac.    Ry.    Co.     v.     Harper 

J{ros.,    201    Fed.    671—502,    1918. 
Missouri    Pac.   R.    Co.   v.    Hams,    67 
iVx.    160—33,   483,   459,    485,   486, 
890,   1456. 
.Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Harris,    1 

Tex.   Civ.  App.  Cas.   §   1257—23. 
Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.   v.   Haynes,   72 

Tex.   175—203,   385,  393,  398. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heath  (Tex.), 

18  S.  W.  477—833. 
Alissouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heidenheimer, 

82  Tex.    195—224,  231,  271,  279. 
:\Iissouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Hewett,    2 

Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.   §   273—613. 
Missouri   Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Holcomb,  44 

Kan.  332—1056. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  International 
Marine  Ins.  Co.,  84  Tex.  149—547. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Ivy,  79  Tex. 

444—821,  898. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Ivey.  71  Tex. 
409—8,  459,  1037,  1038,  1451,  1467, 
1503,   1505. 
Missouri   Pac.   R.  Co.  v.  Jarrard,   65 

Tex.  500—1715. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  72 

Tex.  95—1123. 
Missouri   Pac.    R.    Co.   v.   Kaiser,    82 

Tex.    144—1719. 
Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Kingsbury 
(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  25   S.  W.   323— 
908,  920. 
Fissouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Larabee  Flour 
Mills  Co.,  211  U.  S.  612—125,  704, 
1893. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Levi,  4  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  Cas.  §  8—325,  309. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  L.  Newburger 

&  Bros.,   67   Kan.   846—196. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Livcrigbt,  7 

Kan.  App.  772—1376. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Long,  81  Tex. 

253—1125,   1232,   1242,   1666. 
Fissouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Martino,    2 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  634—1713. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages. 


clxxix 


Missouri  Pac.  R.   Co.  v.  McCally,  41 

Kan.  639 — 1544. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  McFadden,  154 

U.  S.  155—175,  191. 
Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.  v.  McGrath,   3 

Kan.  App.  220 — 597. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell,  75 

Tex.  77—1554,  1556. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell,   72 

Tex.    171—1123,    1717,    1723,    1724, 
ilissouri   Pac.   R.   Co.  v.  Neiswanger, 

41    Kan.   621—1555,    1601. 
Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Xevill,    60 

Ark.    375—325,   384. 
Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Nevin,    31 

Kan.  385—615. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Northern,  73 

Tex.  27—1232. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Paine,  1  Tex. 

Civ.   App.   621 — 485,  486,   UOG,   837. 
Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.     v.     Peru-Van 

Zandt    Impl.    Co.,    73    Kan.    295 — 

276,  602,  608,  657. 
Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Riggs,    10 

Kan.  App.  578 — 377. 
Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Rushin,    3 

Willson  CJy.   Cas.  Ct.  App.    (Tex.) 

318—336,  595. 
Missouri    Pac.    R.     Co.     v.     Russell 

(Tex.),    18   S.   W.   594—599. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Ryan,  2  Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.   §  430—517. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Scott,  4  Tex. 

Civ.   App.    76—571,    1475. 
Missouri   Pac.  R.   Co.  v.   Shepard,   72 

Tex.  16.5—1723. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Sherwood,  84 

Tex.    125 — 44S,   520,   5S5. 
Missouri   Pac.  R.   Co.  v.   Shuford,   72 

Tex.  16.5—1724. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Slator,  3  Will- 
son   Civ.  Cas.  Ct.  App,  §  7 — 1364. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Smith  (Tex.), 

16  S.  VV.  803—459,  896. 
Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Stults,    31 

Kan.  752—541. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 

Co..    41    Fed.    913—820,    903,    904, 

906. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  36  Fed.  879—1613. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Te.xas,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  33  Fed.  361—414. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Texa*.  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  31    Fed.  802-140,   1S29. 


Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  30   Fed.  2— 1785. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Twiss,  35  Neb. 

267—740,  754,  757,  779. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Union  Stock- 
yards Co.,  204  Fed.  757—697. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

189  U.  S.  274—1877. 
Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.  v.   Watson,   72 

Tex.  631—1607. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Weissman,  2 

Tex.   Civ.   App.    86—128,    131,   343, 

734.  741,  748. 
Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.     v.     Wichita 

Wholesale  Grocery  Co.,  55  Kan.  525 

105,  385,  485. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Wortham,  73 

Tex.  25—1125. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  York,  2  Tex. 

App.  Civ.   Cas.,  §  638—1295,   1296, 

1302. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  York   (Tex.), 

18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  623—524 
Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.   v.   Young.    25 

Neb.  651—728,  774. 
Missouri  R.  Co.  v.  Bines  &  Co.   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  84  S.  W.  1092—611. 
Missouri    Vallev    R.    Co.    v.    Caldwell, 

8  Kan.  244—455. 
Mitchel   V.   Ede,    11   Ad.   &  El.  888— 

214,  244. 
Mitchell  V.  Aupfusta  &  A.  R.  Co.,  87 

S.  C.  375—979. 
Mitchell   V.   Carol  na   C.   R.   Co.,    124 

N.  C.  236—579. 
Mitchell  V.  Cliicaso,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   138 

Iowa.  283-1497. 
Mitchell   V.    Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   51 

Mich.  236—1226,  1477,  1673. 
Mitchell  V.  Chicago  &  A.  Ry.  Co.,  132 

Mo.  App.  14.3—1527. 
Mitchell  V.  Georgia  R.  Co.,  68  Ga.  644 

—454,  821. 
Mitchell    \-.    Lancashire,    off..    T?     To, 

L.  R.   10  Q.  B.  256—256,  286,  413! 
Mitchell   V.    Lancashire,    etc.,   R.    Co., 

44  L.  J.  Q.  B.   107—404. 
Mitchell  V.  Jlarkcr,  62  Fed.  139—102. 
Mitchell  V.  Railway  Co.,  51  Mich.  236 

—1224. 
Mitchell  V.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co..   87 

Cal.    62—1500,     1565,     1572,     1581 

1638,   1639,   1731,   1789,   1817,   1834', 

1888. 


ci: 


TAHL1-:  OF  CASES. 


(Tho  ref 0 rt'iift's  nre  to  tlic  paj^s.) 


Mitihell    V.    liiitcd    Hva.   I'o.,    lliS   Mo. 

A  pp.   1  —  1170. 
Mitiliell   V.    Initcd   States   Kxpr.   Co., 

■«ii  li'wa.  214— :)7»>.  579. 
Mit.hrll    V.    \\>ir.    19    App.    Div.    (N. 

V.)    1S:1— 260. 
ilitclidl   V.    WVstorn.   etc.,    R.   Co.,   30 

Cu.  22— 12;{0.   1477. 
Mittlftiian    v.    Pliiludolphia    Rap.    T. 

I'o..  221   I'a.  4S.")— IIG.!,  I«:U). 
Moakrr  v.  Willianiotte  Valley   R.  Co., 

18  Or.    IS!)— 15U7. 
Mobile  &    .M.    Kv.   Co.   v.    Steiner,   61 

Ala.  5o!»— 726! 
.Mobile    &    O.    R.    Co.    V.    Brownsville 

l.iverv.    etc.,    Co.,    123    Tenn.    298 — 

4  43.  8S3. 
Mobile  &  0.  R.  Co.  y.  Reeves.  25  Kt. 

L.  R.  2236—1707,  1708. 
Mobile  &  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Sessions  (C.  C), 

28  Fed.  592—1857. 
Mobile,    etc..    R.   Co.    v.   Ashcraft,   48 

Ala.   15—1556,   1563,   1565. 
Mobile,   etc..   R.   Co.   t.   Copeland,   63 

Ala.  219—743. 
Mobile,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Dale,  61  Miss. 

206—1510. 
Mobile,  etc..  R.  Co.   y.   Desmukes,   94 

Ala.  131—1833. 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  y.  Francis  (Miss.), 

9  So.  508—740,  767. 
Mobile,    etc..    R.    Co.     v.     Franks,    41 

Miss.  494—456. 
Mobile,    etc..    R.    Co.   y.   Hopkins,   41 

Ala.   486—5,   418,   492,    1306,    1352, 

H.'JO.   1457,  14G5. 
Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    y.    Jackson,    92 

MisH.  517—1405. 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  y.  Jarboe,  41  Ala. 

644—426,  454. 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jay,  65  Ala.  113 

—1544. 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jurey,   111   U 

S.  584—588,  590. 
Mobile,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Klein,  43   111. 

App.  63—1503. 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  McArthur,  43 

Mips.   180—1145,  1256,  1709. 
Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Mullins,    70 

Miss.  730—815. 
Mobile,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Prewitt,  46  Ala 

6.3—41,  212.  384,  41.3. 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reeves,  25  Ky 

Law  Rep.  2236 — 1237. 


.Mobile,  etc..  K.  Co.  V.  T.  J.  rhillipa  Si 

Co.   (.Miss.),  GO  So.  672 — 322. 
.Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tupelo  Mfg.  Co., 

(i7  .Miss.  35—740,  778. 
.Mobile,    etc,    R.    Co.    v.    Weinor,    49 

.Miss.  72")— 27.  4!).  427,   1452. 
-Mock  v.  Los  Aii>,'eic.s  Tract.  Co.,  1  St. 

Ry.  Rep.   19    (Cal.)  — 1107. 
Model     (  lotliing     Co.     v.     Columbia 

Transfer   Co.,    139   S.   W.  242    (Mo. 

App.,  1911)— 72. 
Moebus  V.  llerrmun,   108  N.  Y.  353^ 

1588. 
Moffal  V.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  123  App. 

Div.    (N.  Y.)    719—1388,   135(5. 
Moffat  v.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

15   L.  T.  N.  S.  630—197,  234,  785, 

832. 
MoHatt  Commission  Co.  y.  Union  Pac. 

R.  Co.,  113  Mo.  App.  544—311,  321. 
Moflit  V.  Connecticut  Co.    (Conn.),  86 

Atl.  10—1624. 
-lofrili   V.  Central  R.  of  N.  J.,  25  Pa. 

Super.  Ct.  164—1330. 
Mojrul  S.  S.  Co.  V.  McGregor,  Gow  & 

Co.,   L.   R.  21   Q.  B.  544,  L.  R.  23 

Q.  B.  ,548—162. 
Moliawk,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Niles,  3  Hill 

(N.  Y.)    162—781. 
Mohnke  v.  New  Orleans  City,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,   104  La.  411—1097. 
Mohr  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Iowa 

579-381.  392,  393.  ' 

Molloy   V.    New    York   Cent.,   etc.,   R 

Co.,  10  Daly   (N.  Y.),  453—1155. 
Mollory  v.  Tiojra.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)    488—51. 
Mollory  v.  Tioga  R.  Co.,  32  How.  Pr, 

(N.  Y.)    616—9. 
Monitor  Mut.  F.  Ins.  Co.  v.   Buffum, 

115   Mass.   34.3 — 431. 
Monk  v.  Town  of  New  Utrecht,   104 

N.  Y.  552—1590. 
Monnier  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co    175 

X.  Y.  281—1721. 
Monnier  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,    70   App.    Div.    (N.   Y.)    405— 

1395. 
Monroe  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  79 

App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  587—1610. 
Monroe  v.   United   Rys.  Co.,   154   Mo 

App.   39-1683. 
Montana    Cent.    Ry.    Co.     y.     United 

States,  164  Fed.  400— 814. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


clxxxi 


(The  references  are  to  the  pagea.) 


Montana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t.  Mosley,  198 

Fed.  991—139. 
Monteith  v.  Merchants'  Despatch,  etc., 

Co.,  1  Ont.  Rep.  47—599,  605. 
Montgomery   v.   Buffalo   Ry.   Co.,    165 

N.  Y.   139—1273,   1413. 
Montgomery    v.    Buffalo    Ry.    Co.,    24 
'^        App.  Div.  454—1077. 

Montgomery   v.    Colorado    Springs    & 

T.    Ry.    Co.,    50    Colo.    210—1585, 

1698,  1700. 
Montgomery  El.  R.  Co.  t.  Mallett,  92 

Ala.   209—^1215,  1715. 
Montgomery,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Boring, 

51  Ga.  582—1701. 
Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Culver,  75 

Ala.     587—743,     777,     1306,     1361, 

1563. 
Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Edmonds, 

41  Ala.  667—454,  552,  585. 
Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.   v.  Kolb,  73 

Ala.   396^179,    184,   185,   187,   188. 
Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mallette, 

92  Ala.  209—1500,  1706. 
Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  51 

Ala.  394—543.  574. 
Montgomery,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.   Stewart, 

91  Ala.  421—1228,  1230.  1567,  1576, 

1613. 
Montgomery,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson, 

77  Ala.  448—1060. 
Montgomery    Shoshone    Mines    Co.   v. 

Las     Vegas     &     Tonopah     R.     Co. 

(Nev.),  132  Pac.  1157—661. 
Montgomery    St.   Ry.    Co,   y.   Shanks, 

139"  Ala.  "489— 1560. 
Montpclier,  etc.,  R.  Co.  y.  Macchi,  74 

Vt.  403—682. 
Montpclier.    etc.,    R.    Co.    y.    United 

States,  187  Fed.  271—1817. 
Moody  V.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  79  S.  C. 

297—251. 
bloody     V.     Springfield     St.     R.     Co. 

(Mass.),  65  N.  E.  29—1042. 
Moon   V.    IntPrurban    St.    Ry.    Co.,    85 

N.  Y.  Supp.  363—1419,  1721. 
Mooney    y.    Iludson    Riyer    R.    Co.,    1 

Sweeny    (N.  Y.),  325—1717. 
If'  oney  v.  Seattle,  etc..  Ry.,  47  Wash. 

.540—1160. 
Moore   V.    American    Transp.    Co.,   24 

How.  (U.  S.)   1—1451. 
Moore  y.  Atlantic  Coast   Line  R.  Co., 

85  S.  C.   19—622. 


Moore  y.  Aurora,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  246  111. 

56—1686. 
Moore  y.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103 

Va.  189—797,  836. 
Moore  y.  Central  of  Ga.  R.  Co.,  1  Ga. 

App.  514—1416. 
Moore   v.    Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    151 

Iowa,  353 — 855. 
Moore    y.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    59 

Miss.  243—1563. 
Moore  y.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  S. 

C.  1—992,   1391,   1428,   1429. 
Moore  y.  Des  Moines,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69 

Iowa,  491—1212,   1501. 
Moore  y.  Duncan.  14  Fed.  396—1718. 
Moore  y.  Erie  R.  Co.,  7  Lans.  (N.  Y.) 

39—267. 
Moore  y.  Evans,  14  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  524 

— 429,  460,  462,  570,  1461. 
Moore  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Corp.,  4  Gray 

(Mass.),  465—1181,  1426. 
Moore  v.   Great  Northern   R.   Co..   L. 

R.  10  Ir.  95—823. 
Moore  v.  Great  Northern  R.   Co.,   L. 

R.  8  Ir.  95—482. 
Moore  y.  Greenville  Tr.   Co.    (S.  C), 

77  S.  E.  928—1485. 
Moore   v.   Henry,    18   Mo.    App.    35 — 

637,  754,  755.' 
Moore  y.  Hitchcock,  4  Wend.   (N.  Y.) 

292—16. 
Moore  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,   L.  R. 

8  Q.  B.  36—1150,  1183,  1184. 
Moore    v.    Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.,    3 

Mich.  23—407,  775. 
Moore  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  8  Ir.  R.  C. 

L.  232—465. 
Moore  y.  Nashville,  etc..  R.   Co.,   137 

Ala.  495—1433. 
Moore  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  173 

Mass.  33.=5 — 1368. 
Moore  v.  Railroad  Co.,  119  Mich.  613 

—1609. 
^loore    v.    Saginaw,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    119 

Mich.  61.3—1634. 
Moore  v.  Shreveport,  3  La.  Ann.  645 

—1541. 
Moore  y.  St.  Louis  4;  S.  F.  R.  Co.,  143 

Mo.  App.  675—884. 
Moore  y.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  270 

—1893. 
Moore    V.    Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co ,    84 

ISfo.  481  —  1126. 
Monrolnnd     Rural     Telephone    Co.    v. 

Moiich,  48  Ind.  .\pp.  521—94. 


clxxxii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
^Thc  roforonoi^  are  U)  the  i)a;:ros.) 


Moorman     v.     Atchison,    eto.,    U.    Co. 

(.Mo.    App.),    78    S.    W.    lOS!)— 120. 
Moran  Bros.  v.  Nortliorn  Tae.  R.  Co., 

li)  Wasli.  -Jtili— 1;52.  t!74. 
Mori'lumso  v.    Texas  Trunk   R.   Co.,  4 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  e'as.,  §  200 — 145. 
Morel    V.    Mississip|)i    Val.    L.    I.   Co., 

4  Hush    (Ky.t.  5;i5— 1500. 
Moreland  v.   Hoston,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   141 

Mass.  ;U  — lOSO,  1120. 
Morey  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Kan. 

73—1100. 
Moriran  v.  Cauulen,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Ta.), 

ui  Atl.  ;}5;?— i(Ui5. 
Mor^'an  v.  Chesapeake  &  0.  R.  Co.,  32 

Kv.     Law     Rep.     330—1100,     1112, 

1491. 
Morgan  v.  Congdon,  4  N.  Y.  552 — 16. 
Moruan  v.  Dibble.  29  Tex.   107—258, 

270. 
Morgan  v.  Ide,  8  Cush.  (INIass.)  420— 

531. 
Morgan  v.   Los  Angeles  Pac.   Co.,   13 

Cal.  App.  12—1088. 
Morgan   v.    Saks.    143    Ala.    130—102, 

10!)6. 
Morgan  v.   Southern   Pac.   R.   Co.,  95 

Cal.    501—1633,    1702,    1715,    1727, 

1729. 
Morgan  v.  Woolvorton,  136  App.  Div. 

(X.  Y.)  351—1380. 
Morgan    v.    Woolverton,    120    N.    Y. 

Supp.   1008-113. 
Morgan's  L.  &   T.  R.  &  S.  S.  Co.  v. 

Railroad   Commission,   127   La.  636 

—657. 
Moriartv   v.    Harnden's    Express    Co., 

1    Daiv    (N.  Y.),  227—11,  453. 
Moritz  V.  Interurban   St.  Ry.  Co.,  84 

N.  Y.   Supp.   102—1166. 
Morlev  v.  Hav.  3  M.  &  R.  696—642. 
Morrill  v.  Minneapolis  St.  R.  Co.,  103 

Minn.  362—1433. 
Morris   v.   Atlantic   Ave.  R.   Co.,   116 

N.  Y.  552—1068. 
Morris  v.  Brown,  111  N.  Y.  318—958. 
Morris  v.  Eighth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  68  Hun 

(N.  Y.),  .39—1638. 
Morris  v.   Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.,    127 

La.  445—1609. 
Morris   v.   New   York   Cent.,   etc..    R. 

Co..    106    N.    Y.     678—1081,    1125, 

1219,   1203.   1477. 
Morris  v.  Third   .Ave.  R.  Co.,   1   Dalv 
(N.  Y.),  202—1531. 


.Morristhile   I'oal    Co.   v.    Pennsylvania 

U.  Co.,  183  Fed.  1)2!)— 1SS8. 
Morri.sdale   Coal    Co.   v.   Pennsylvania 

R.   Co..   176    Fed.   748— 1S57. 
Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ayres,  29  N.  J. 

L.     393—274,    385,    397,    410,    413, 

1070. 
Morrison    v.   Broadway,    etc.,    R.   Co., 

l:!0  N.  Y.  100—1016. 
Morrison    v.    ISroadway,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

8  N.  Y.  Supp.  436—1238. 
Morrison  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123 

N.  C.  414—1239. 
Morrison  v.   Davis,  20  Pa.   St.    171— 

53,  319,  357,  372,  373,  401,  573,  606. 
Morrison  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  56  N.  Y.  305 

—1243,     1595,     1598,     1645,     1675, 

1077,  1078. 
Morrison  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  63  N.  Y.  643—1516. 
Morrison  v.  Pliillips,  etc.,  Constr.  Co., 

44    Wis.    405—431,    438,    459,    794, 

822. 
Morrow  v.  Atlantic,  etc..  Air  Line  R. 

Co.    (N.  C).  46  S.  E.  12—1676. 
Morrow  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  140 

Mo.  App.  200—514,  604,  608,  621, 

623. 
Morrow   v.   Pullman  Palace  Car   Co., 

98  ]\lo.  App.  351—64. 
Morse     v.     Auburn,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    10 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    621—1702,  1714. 
Morse   v.    Brainerd,   41    Vt.   550 — 46, 

755,  756. 
Morse  v.    Canadian    Pac.   R.    Co.,   97 

Me.  77 — 419,  469,  873. 
Morse  v.  Duncan,  14  Fed.  396 — 1707, 

1708. 
Morse  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 

Minn.  465—564,  15.54,   1556,  1.557. 
Morse  v.  Slue,  1  Vent.  238—75,  324, 

430. 
Moseland  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co,   141 

Mass.  31—1214. 
Morton  v.  Tibbett,  15  Q.  B.  428 — 117. 
Morville  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  16 

•Jur.  528—464. 
Moscr   V.   South   Covington   &   C.   St. 

Ry.  Co.,  25  Ky.  L.  R.  154—1042. 
Mosher  v.   Southern  Express  Co.,  38 

Ga.  37—743. 
Moseley  v.  Lord,  2  Conn.  389 — 8, 
Moses  v.  Bettis,  4  Heisk   (Tenn.)   661 
71. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


clxxxiii 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Moses  V.  Boston  &  M.  R.  Co.,  76  N.  H. 

570—1669. 
Moses  V.   Boston,   etc..  H.  Co.,  32  N. 

H.  523—393,  395,  1452. 
Moses  V.  Boston,   etc.,   K.   Co.,  24  N. 
H.  71—27,  71,  73,  83,  119,  181,  352, 
375,  425,  427,  457,  490,  526,    1213, 
1458. 
Moses  V.  Hamburg  American  Packet 

Co.,  88  Fed.  329—2037. 
Moses   V.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   39 

La.  Ann.  649—987,  1232,  1241. 
Moses  V.  Norris,  4  N.  H.  304—25,  71, 

72,  287. 
Moses  V.  Port  Townsend,  etc..  R.  Co., 

5  Wash.  595—223,  639,  798. 
Moskowitz  V.  Brooklyn  H.  R.  Co.,  85 

N.  Y.  960—1645. 
Moskowitz  V.  International  Xav.  Co., 

84  N.  Y.  Supp.  297—1304. 
Mosle  V.  The  Sintram,  64  Fed.  884— 

1995. 
Moss  V.  Bettis,  4  Heisk  (Tenn.)  661— 

23. 
Moss  V.  Johnson,  22  111.  633—1063. 
Moss  V.   Lancaster,   etc.,   St.   R.   Co., 

218  Pa.  601—1160. 
Moss  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  153  Mo. 

App.  602—834. 
Mote    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    27 

Iowa,  22—199,  411,  13.50,  1453. 
Mott  V.  Consumers'  Ice  Co.,  73  N.  Y. 

543—1156. 
Mott  V.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  Mich. 

127—1560. 
Mott  V.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  8  Bosw. 

(N.  Y.)    345—1269. 
Mott  V.  Long  Island   R.  Co.,   123   N. 

Y.  Supp.  49—388. 
Motteram  v.  Eastern  Counties  R.  Co., 

97  E.  C.  L.  58—1071. 
Moulton  V.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31 

Minn.   85-4.56,  494,  896. 
Mount    Pleasant    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Cape 
Fear,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106  N.  C.  207— 
720,  781. 
Mouton    V.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 
(Ala.),  29  So.  601,  602—439,  .569, 
.570. 
Mowrey    v.    Central   Citv   R.    Co.,    51 

N.  Y.  666—1587,  1593. 
Mowrey    v.    Central    f'ilv    R.    Co.,    06 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    4.3—1098,   1589. 
Mowrey  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  51 
Hun    (N.  Y.)    126—92. 


Moyer  v.  Pennsvlvania  R.  Co.,  31  Pa. 

Super.  Ct.  559—382,  1357. 
Movland  v.   Second  Ave.   R.  Co.,    128 

N.  Y.  583—1615,  1618. 
Moynahan  v.  Moore,  9  Mich.  9 — 645. 
Mt.  Adams,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Isaacs,  18 

Ohio  C.  C.  177—1506. 
Mt.  Vernon  Co.  v.  Alamaba  G.  S.  R. 

Co.,  92  Ala.  296—774. 
Mt.    Vernon    Milling   Co.   v.    Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  I.  C.  C.  Rep.   194— 
1867,  1870. 
Muckle  v.  Rochester  R.  Co.,  79  Hun 

(X.  Y.)   32—1416,  1418. 
Muddle  V.  Stride,  9  Car.  &  P.  380— 

579. 
Muehlhausen  v.  St.  Louis  R.  Co.,  91 
Mo.  332—990,  992,  987,  996,   1016, 
1057. 
Mueller  v.  St.  Louis  Tr.  Co.,  108  Mo. 

App.  325—1167. 
Muir   v.   Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.    (Mn. 

App.),   154  S.  W.  877—839. 
Mulberrv    Hill    Coal    Co.    v.    Illinois 
Cent. 'R.   Co.,    161   111.   App.   272— 
143. 
Mulcairns  v.  Janesville,  67  Wis.  24 — 

1478. 
Muldoon   V.   Seattle   City   R.   Co.,    10 

Wash.  311—1464. 
Muldoon     V.     Seattle     City     R.     Co. 

(Wash.)   22  L.  R.  A.  794—1054. 
Muldoon  V.   Seattle  R.   Co.,   7   Wash. 
528—1331,   1451,    1459,    1463,    1639. 
Mulhado  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  30 

N.  Y.  370—1236. 
Mull  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  38  Pa. 

Super.  Ct.  416—652. 
Mulladv   V.    Brooklyn   H.   R.   Co.,   65 

App.'Div.    (N.   Y.)    549—1727. 
Mullan    V.    Wisconsin    Cent.    Co.,    46 

Minn.  474-1186. 
Mullarkey   v.   Pliiladelphia   R.   Co.,   9 

Phila.  '(Pa.)    114—740. 
Muller  V.  Eno,   14  N.  Y.  .597—585. 
Muller  V.  Manliattan  Rv.  Co.,  48  Misc. 

(N.   Y..)    524 — 1207.' 
Muller  V.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  16  .T.  S. 

(N.  Y.)    .546—1409. 
Mulligan  v.   Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  3ft 
Iowa,   181—431,  444,  455,  744,  766, 
760. 
.MiilliLran   v.  Metropolitan   St.   R.   Co., 
89  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   207—1614. 


vixxxiv 


TAbLK  ItF  CASES. 
(The  roforonct*  are  to  the  papica.) 


Mullipan    v.    Met.    St.    Ky.    Co..    87 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    32a  — 1620. 
Mulligan   V.    Now    York,   etc..    H.   Co., 

12;>  N.  Y.  r)0()— nr.«.  nt»s.  ii82. 

Mulligan   v.  Nortbrrn    Pm-.   U.  Co..  4 

Diik.  ;n:)— S4.  ;{7t'>.  40(i.  542.  1:151. 

Mull  in    V.    T.onj:    Island    K.    Co..    1.3(> 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   7;}:5— 1075.  1422. 
Mullins  V.  Chiokoring,  110  N.  Y.  514 

— 209.  o'M).  532. 
Mullina   v.    Illinois    Cent.    R.   Co..    03 

Miss.    1S4— 130t). 
Munks  V.  Jackson  (C.  C.  App.  0th  C.) 

13  C.  C.  A.  ()41— 55. 
Munn  V.  Paker.  2  Stark,  255—435. 
Munn   V.    Illinois.   04   U.   S.    113—70, 

113.  1753.   1761. 
Munroe  v.  Tliird  Ave.  K.  Co.,  18  J.  A 

S.    (N.  Y.)    114—1615. 
Munsev  v.  Webb,  37  App.  D.  C.  185— 

102.* 
Munson  S.  S.  Line  v.  E.  Steiger  &  Co., 

132  Fed.  160—2028. 
Munster  v.   South   Eastern   R.  Co.,  4 

C.  B.  N.  S.  676—128.  1203. 
Murch  V.  Concord  R.  Corp.  29  N.  H. 

n — 43,  045.    1121. 
Murdock  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   137 

Mass.  293—1417. 
Murdock  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133 

Mass.   15—1183. 
Murkle  v.  Rochester  R.  Co.,  79  Hun 

(N.  Y.)    32—1068. 
Murnahan  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

(Kv.).  86  S.  W.  688-1681. 
Murphv   V.   Atlanta,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   89 

Ga.  832—1220,   1487. 
Murphv  V.  Citv  of  Davton,  7  Ohio  N. 

P.  227—1122. 
Murphv  V.  Coney  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

36  liun   (N.  Y.)    199—1487. 
Murphv  V.  Emigration  Com'rs,  28  N. 

Y.   154— 135  L 
Murphv  V.  Holbrook,  20  Ohio  St.  137 

— 4.5".  46. 
Murphv  V.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co., 

10   Misc.   Rep.    (N.  Y.)    194—1239. 
Murphy  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  66 

P.arb.    (N.  Y.)    125—1554,   1560. 
Murphv  v.  Ninth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  6  Misc. 

R.    (N.  Y.)    208—1097. 
Murphv  V.  North   -Tersov   St.  R.  Co., 

81  N.  J.  Law.  70r>— 1111. 
Murphy   v.   Nortli    Jersey   St.   R.   Co. 
(N.  J.  L.),  58   Atl.   1018—1620. 


Murphy  v.   Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  St. 

Hop.'  (N.  Y.)    381—1670. 
Mur|ihy  v.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  21  Nev. 

120—1495. 
Murjtliv  V.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  77  S.  C. 

76— "197. 
Murphy    v.    Staton,    3    Munf.     (Va.), 

239—27,   75,  571. 
Mur[)hy  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43 

Mo.  App.  342-990,  989,  1017,  1264, 

1487. 
Murphy  v.  St.  Louis  Transit  Co.,  96 

Mo.  *App.  272—1178. 
Murphy  v.   Union    U.  Co.,    118   Mass. 

228—1140,   1401.    1407. 
Murphy    v.    Wabash    R.    Co.,    3    Int. 

Com.  R.  725—1780. 
Murphy   v.    Wells,    Fargo   &    Co.,    99 

Minn.  230—513. 
ISIurphy   v.   Western,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   23 

Fed.' 637—1143,  1189. 
Murray   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co..   92 

Fed.  868—157,  1785. 
Murray   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   62 

Fed.  24—1876. 
Murray    v.    International    Stt^amship 

Co.,  170  Mass.  160—171. 
Murray  v.  Lehigh   Valley   R.  Co.,  66 

Conn.    512—11,54. 
Murray  v.  Metropolitan  Dist.  R.  Co., 

27  L.  T.  N.  S.  762—1487. 
Murray  v.  Pawtuxet  Val.  St.  R.  Co., 

25  R.  I.  209—1505. 
Murray  v.  Postal  Telegraph  &  Cable 

Co., '210  Mass.   188—93. 
Murray  v.  Railroad  Co.,  62  Fed.  24— 

189.5. 
Murray    v.    Se;ittl(>    Electric    Co.,    50 

Wash.  444— 1  COS. 
Murray    v.    Warner,   55   N.   H.    546 — • 

202." 
Murr.ll  V.  Dixev,   14  I^a.  Ann.  208— 

588,  GOO. 
MurroU    v.    Pacific    Express    Co.,    54 

Ark.  22—596,  6IS. 
Murrill  v.  American  Express  Co.,  62 

N.  IT.  514—1450. 
Muscliaiup  V.  Lanca.ster,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

8  M.  &  W.  421—744.  753. 
Muser  v.  Holland.  17  Blackf.   (U.  S.) 

412—418.  401,   1456,   1457. 
Muskogee    Electric   Tr.    Co.    v.    Mcln- 

tvre    (Okl.),   133  Pac.  213—1502. 
Muskogpf-  Tel.  Co.  v.   Hall,   118  Fed. 

382—1734. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


.Ixxxv 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Muth   V,   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    87 

^fo.  App.  422—965. 
Mutual    Ins.    Co.   v.   Tweed,    7    Wall. 

(U.  S.)   44—616. 
Mutual  Transit  Co.  v.  United  States, 

178  Fed.  6G4— 1777. 
Myers  v.  Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co.,  150 

Pa.  St.  386-1520. 
Myers  v.   Diamond  Joe  Line,  58  Mo. 

App.  199—350. 
Myers  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,   10  St. 

Rep.   {N.  Y.)   430—1238. 
Mvers      V.     Nashville,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

'(Tenn.),   72   S.   W.   114—1626. 
Mvers  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  88 

Hun   (N.  Y.),  619—1577. 
Myers    v.    Pennsylvania    Co.,    2    Int. 

Com.  Rt'p.  403—1781. 
Myers  v.  VVabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Mo. 

98 — 851,  873. 
Myerson   v.   Woolverton,   3   Misc.   R. 

(N.  Y.)    186—1363. 
Mykleby  v.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  39 

Minn.   54—1181,   1713. 
Mylton  V.  Midland  R.  Co.,  4  H.  &  N. 

615—744. 
Mynard  v.   Syracuse,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   7 

Hun    (N.  Y.),   309—460,  462. 
Mynning  v.  Detroit,   59   Mich.   257 — 

1476. 
Mynning  v.   Detroit,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   67 

Mich.   677—1541. 
Mynard  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  71 

N.  Y.   180—33,  371,  372,  461,  618, 

579.  784,  821,   1463. 
Myrick   v.  Michigan   Cent.  R.   Co.,   9 

Biss.    (U.   S.)    44—732,  798,   848. 
Myrrick  v.  Micliigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  107 

U.   S.   102—32.   390.   450,   738,   742, 

755,  702,  821.  837,  1362. 
Mytton  V.  Midland  R,  Co.,  28  L.  J. 

Exch.  385-1293. 


N. 

Na«rel  V.  United  Rva.  of  St.  Tvouris,  109 

Mo.  App.  284—1499. 
Nagle   V.   Alleghnnv    Val.   R.   Co.,   88 

Pa.    St.    3.5-1588,    1591. 
Nagle  V.  California  Southern  R.   Co., 

88  Cal.  80—1211.   1598,   1672. 
Naja«  V.  Boston,  <'tc..  R.  Co.,  7  Allen 

fMnss.).    329—1302. 
Naliy    V.     Harfford    (  arpct    Co.,     51 

Conn.   524 — 564. 


Nance  v.  Carolina  Cent.  R.  Co.,  94  N. 

C.  619—1220,   1241,  1677. 
Nanson   v.   Jacob,    93   Mo.   331—210, 

223,  728. 
Naneon  v.  Jacob,  12  Mo.  App.  125 — 

210,  728. 
Nash  v.  Sharp,  19  Hun   (N.  Y.)    365 

—1716,   1728. 
Nash  v.   Southern   Ry.   Co.,   136   Ala. 

157—1197. 
Nasnua  Lock   Co.   v.   Worcester,  etc., 

R.    Co.,    48    N.    H.    339—744,    764, 

778,  1361. 
Nashvillo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  C«,sey,  1  Ala. 

344-1087. 
Nashville,    etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Crosbv 

(Ala.),  62  So.  889—1540. 
Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    David,    6 

Heisk    (Tenn.),   261—27,   334,   338, 

363. 
Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Dreyfuss- 

Weil  Co.,   150  Ky.  333—1905. 
Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Estes,    10 

Lea    (Tenn.),  749—324,  3o;J. 
Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Estis,    7 

Heisk    (Tenn.),  622—325. 
Nashvi  le,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Erwin 

(Tenn.),  3  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  465 

—1043. 
Nashville,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v.    Haslett 

(Tenn.),  79   S.   W.   1031—445. 
Nashville,   otc,   R.   Co.   v.  Hoggie,   86 

Gia.  210—816,  820. 
Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Hinds,    5 

Ala.  App.  506—824,  889. 
Nashville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Jackson,   6 

Heask    (Tenn.),  271—343,  359,  458, 

459,  785. 
Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  15 

Lea  (Tenn.),  677—1082,  1552,  1653, 

1554. 
Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Jones     9 

Heisk    (Tenn.),   27—1120. 
Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co     v.    King,    6    » 

Heisk    (Tenn.),  269—363. 
Nashville,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Lillie 

(Tenn.),  78  S.  W.  105.5—65. 
Nashville,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Mossino,    1 

Sneed    (Tenn.),   220—43,   944,   990, 

986,  991,    1131,   1553.   1564. 
Nashville,  etc.,  R.  v.  Moore,  148  Ala. 

6;?— 1408. 
Xiislivillo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parker,  123 

Ala..   08.3—818. 
XaKhvilic,     etr-.,     R.     Co.     v.     Smith 

(.\Ia.).  31    So.  481—544, 


c'l\\.\vi 


TAIU.K  t>F  CASKS. 
(VUv  ii't't  Ti'iu'cs  :iro  to  till'  ]v:i;;eM.) 


Nashville,    etc.,    U.    Co.    v.    Stone    & 

llaslott.    112    Tcim.    ;)4S— 571,    SiH, 

!>03,  lt07,  i)'23.  '.••24. 
Na^livillo,   oti'.,    1\.    Co.   v.   Tliomas,   5 

lloisk    (Ti'iin.).   21)2—1511. 
Na^hvilltN   I'tc,    11.    Co.   v.   Troxler,    1 

Um    (IViin.),   521)— 1270. 
Nashvilk'  St.  Ky.  v.  C.rillin,  104  Tonn. 

81— 14:{4. 
Xajssau  Wee.   Ry.  Co.  v.  Corliss.    120 

Fed.  aSa— 1072,  1020. 
Xateliez,    etc..    K.    Co.    v.    McNeil,    61 

Miss.  434—1115. 
Nathan   v.   (Jiles,   5   Taunt,   558—232. 
National    Uank   v.    riiiladelphia,   etc., 

R.  Co.,   103   Pa.   St.  407—222,  223. 
National   Bank   v.   Southern   Ry.   Co., 

135  Mo.  App.  74 — 277. 
National    ]?aiik    v.    Railroad    Co.,    44 

Minn.   224—229,   230. 
National  Connncrcial  Bank  v.  Lacka- 
wanna Transp.   Co.,   172  N.  Y.  596 

—217. 
National  Docks  R.  Co.  v.  Central  R. 

Co.,  32  N.  J.  Eq.  755—121. 
National      Line     Steamship      Co.     v. 

Smart,   107   Pa.   St.   492—381,  413. 
National    Pctrok'ura    Assn.    v.    Louis- 
ville &  N.  R.  Co.,  15  Q.  C.  C.  Rep. 

470—127. 
National    Petroleum    Assoc,    v.    Ann 

Arl>or  R.  Co.,  14  I.  C.  C.  Rep.  272 

-1873. 
National  Rice  Milling  Co.  v.  New  Or- 
leans &  N.  E.  R.  Co.,   132  La.  615 

—317,  424. 
Naugatuck  R.  Co.  v.  Waterbury  But- 
ton Co.,  24  Conn.  468—739. 
Nave  V.   Flack,  90   Ind.   205—1242. 
Naylor  v.    Mangles,    1    F3sp.    109 — 16. 
Neal    V.    Snunderson.    2    Smed    &    M. 

(Miss.)   572—27,  31,  307. 
Neal   V.   Southern   Ry.   Co.,   92   S.   C. 

197—1696. 
Neal   V.   Wilmington,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   8 

Jones  L.    (N.  C.)    482—381.  411. 
Nealand  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.   Co.,   161 

Mass.   67-380,    1350,   1356. 
Nebenzahl  v.  Fargo,  15  Daly   (N.  Y.), 

130—207. 
Nebraska  Teleph.  Co.  v.  State  Yeiser, 

55  Neb.  627—95. 
Nebraska    Transfer    Co.    v.    Chicago, 

etc..  R.  Co..  90  Neb.  488—690. 
N«*^dham  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.  Co.,  82 

Vt.  518—795. 


Nwdle.s  V.  Harvard,    1    K.   D.   Sni.    (N. 

\.)    54—137."). 
NcivU    V.    WcMiTii    .Maryland    R.   Co., 

2-i"  I'a.    Siijier.   (  t.   4S9-~!)U5. 
Neice    v.    Chicago    &    A.    R.    Co.,    254 

111.  595— !)60. 
Neil    V.    .American    Kxpn-ss   Co.,   Rap. 

.lud.   Que.   liO   C.    S.   253—768. 
Noill  v.  Hogi-rs  Bros.  Produce  Co.,  41 

\V.  Va.  37—224,  227. 
Neilsen  v.  Je.ssup,  30    Fed.    138—525. 
Nellis  V.  New   York  Cent.   R.  Co.,  30 

N.  Y.  505—1394. 
Nelms   V.  Mortgage  Co.,  92  Ala.   157 

—1735. 
Nelson   v.   Atlantic,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    68 

Mo.  593-1678. 
Nelson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  III. 

App.  180—214. 
Nelson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  78  Neb. 

57—833,  841. 
Nelson    v.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    60 

Wis.  320—1260. 
Nelson  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  28 

Mont.  297—373,  420,  835,  860,  881, 

890,  905. 
Nelson   v.   Hudson    River   R.   Co.,   48 

N.  Y.  498—272,  441,  452,  400. 
Nelson    v.    Lehigh    Vallev    R.    Co.,   25 

Ai)p.  Div.    (N.  Y.)   53.5—1124,  1488. 
Nelson  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  7  Hun 

(N.     Y.),     140—1025,     1027,    1396, 

1445. 
Nelson  v.  Macintosh,   1  Stark.  237 — 

13. 
Nelson   v.   Metropolitan    St.   Ry.   Co., 

113  Mo.  App.   702—998. 
Nelson  v.  National   Steamship  Co.,  7 

Ben.    (U.   S.)    340—454,  552. 
Nelson  v.  Odiorne,  45  N.  Y.  489—350. 
Nelson   v.   Soutlurn    Pac.   R.   Co.,    18 

Utah,  244-1086,  1175. 
Nelson  v.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  15  Utah, 

.32,5-1662. 
Nelson  v.  Stephenson,  12  N.  Y.  Super. 

Ct.    (5  Duer)    538—559. 
Neslie    v.    Second,    etc.,    Stroets    Pass 

R.  Co..   113— Pa.  St.  300—1262. 
Neston    Colliery   Co.    v.   London,    etc., 
R.   Co.,   4   Ry.  &  C.  T.   Cas.  257— 

386. 
Nettles   v.   South   Carolina   R.   Co..   7 
Rich.    L.     fS.    C.)     190—260,    343, 
.598,   604.   607. 
Neuer   v.    MetropolitnTi    ^*-.    T?v.    Co., 
143   Mo.   Apn.   402—1171.    1-?7^. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


clxxxvii 


Neum   V.   Rochester   Ry.   Co.,    1G5   N. 

Y.   146—1587. 
Neville  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.    (Tenn. ), 

146  S.  W.  846—1174. 
Xtville  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  158 

Mo.  293—1662. 
Neville     v.    ^^■oolverton,     142    N.    Y. 

Supp.  202—199. 
Xcvin  V.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.,  106 

111.  222 — G6,  67,  945. 
Nevins  v.   Bank  of  Lansingburgh,    10 

Mich.   547-85. 
Nevins  v.   Bav   State  Steamboat  Co., 

17  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.   (4  Bosw.)   225 

—1292,  129.'],  1294,  1337,  1350. 
Nevises      v.     Chicago,    etc.,     R.      Co. 

(Wis.),   102  N.  W.  489—906. 
New  Albany,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Campbell, 

12  Ind.  55—202,  392. 
Newark  &  So.  R.  Co.  v.  McCann,  58 

N.  J.  L.    (29  Vroom.)    642—1591. 
Newark,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   ]\lcCann,   58 

N.  J.  L.  642—1248. 
Newberger    Cotton     Co.     v.     Illinois 

Cent.  R.  Co.,  75  Miss.  303—579. 
Newborn  v.  Just,  2  C.  &  P.  76—464. 
New    Brunswnck    Steamboat,    etc.,    T. 

Co.  V.  Tiers,  24  N.  J.  L.   697—27, 

183,  307,  372. 
NcAvbury  v.  Seaboard  Air  L.  Rv.,  160 

N.  C.  156—1378. 
Newby    v.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.,    19 

Mo.  App.  .391—851,  928. 
Newcomb  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.,  115 

Mass.  230—227. 
Newcomb  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  182  Mo.  687—1232. 
Newell  V.  Smith,  49  Vt.  200-46.  589, 

599.  740. 
New  England  &  S.  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Paig-, 

108  Ga.  296—2021. 
New  Englnnd  Exj).  Co.  v.  Maine  Cent. 

R.  Co.,  57  Me.  188—117,  157. 
New  Englnnd   Mfg.   Co.  v.   Starin.  60 

Conn.  369-118. 
New  ?"ngland  News  Co.  v.  'Nf-'tropnlj- 

tan  S.  S.  Co.,  102  N.  E.  423—500. 
Newhall  v.  Vargas.   15  Me.  314—640. 

641. 
New  TTavcn,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Campbell. 

128  Ma«s.  104 — 644. 
New   .Torsov.   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   P-niisvl- 

van^a   R.  Co..  27   X.  J.  L.    KlO— .52. 
New  .Torsoy  Expre<;s  Co.  v.  Nichols,  33 

N.  .T.   r,."  434—1544.   1.14n. 


New  Jersey  Fruit  Exch.  v.  Central  R. 

Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  R.  84—1776. 
New    Jersey    R.    Co.   v.    Kennard,    21 

Pa.   St.  203—1106. 
New  Jersey  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 

Co.,  27  N.  J.  L.   100—30,  51,   122, 
133. 
New  Jersey  R.  Co.  v.  Pollard,  22  Wall. 
lU.     S.)     341—1264,      1475,     1494, 
1633. 
New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co.  v,  Berger, 

121  U.  S.  639—949. 
New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Brock- 

e.tt,     121     U.     S      637—1147,    1562, 

1713. 
New  Jersey   Steam  Nav.   Co.  v.  Mer- 
chants' Bank,  6  How.    (U.  S.)    344 

—3,    116,   418,    425,    426,   453,   469, 

518,    1451,    1453,    1454,    1455,    1457, 

1467. 
New  Jersey  Tract.  Co.  v.  Danleek,  57 

N.  J.  L.  463—988. 
Newman  y.  Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.,  38 

Fed.  819—1083. 
Newman  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54 

Hun  (N.  Y.),  335—1184. 
Newman  v.  Smoker,  25  La.  Ann.  303 

—1453,    1458. 
Newmark  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc..  R. 

Co.,    127   App.  Diy.    (N.   Y.)    58— 

1624. 
X^ew  Orleans  &  N.  E.  R.  Co.  v.  A.  H. 

George   &   Co.,   82   Miss.   710 — 627, 

689,   691,  695,  697,  703. 
New  Orleans  Cotton  Exch.  v.  Cincin- 
nati, etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  Rep. 

289—1797,  1828,  1829. 
New  Orleans  Cotton  Exch.  v.  Illinois 

Cent.  R.  Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  Rep.  777 

—1781. 
X>w   Orleans  Cotton  Exch.   y.   Louis- 
ville,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   3   Int.   Com.   R, 

52.3—1832. 
X'ew   Orleans,  etc..   R.  Co.   v.   Allbrit- 

ton.  38  Miss.  242—1131,   1494. 
Xew   Orleans,   etc..   R.   Co.  v.   Bailey, 

40  Miss.  395 — 1723. 
Xew   Orleans,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.    Burke, 

.'■)3     l\riss.     200 — 1069,     1187,     1407* 

1713,    1721. 
Xew  Orlenns,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Faler    58 

Miss.  911—456,  552. 
Xew  Orlefins.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hurst    30 

Miss.  600—1250,   1702,   1722. 


clxxxviii 


TAIM.K  i>K  CASES. 
('I'lie    rofi'ifiK-i's    ail"    to    tlir    [la^'os. ) 


Kew    (.hlt'aiis.    etc..    Iv.    Cd.    v.    .Inpcs, 

142  U.  S.   18—1170. 
New  Orleans,  etc..   U.  Co.  v.  ^Ul!\v<n 

&  Murray.  411   La.   Ann.   IISI— r.4!). 
Kew    Orleans,   etc  .    U.    Co.   v.    Moore, 

40  Miss.  ;J!)— r)!V2.  12iil. 
New  Orleans,  etc.,  H.  Co.  v.  Statliam. 

42     Miss.     tH)7— 1140,     1237.     1238, 

124«.   1247.   12i>7,   15112. 
New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Toulinie, 

5!>   Miss.   284—1510. 
New   Orleans,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Tyson, 

40  Miss.  720-255,  2(;0.  507. 
New  Orleans  Exch.  v.  Ry.  Co..  2  Int. 

Com.  C.  Rep.  .•?75— 1775. 
New  Orleans  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  New  Or- 
leans, etc.,  R.  Co..  20  La.  Ann.  ::02 

— 127.  455,  4(J0,  576,  578. 
Newport  News,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Holmes, 

14  Ky.  L.  Rep.  853—579. 
Newport    News,    etc.,    Co.    v.    ilcCor- 

mick.  106  Va.  517—1685. 
Newport    News,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Mon- 

dell     (Kv.),    34    S.    W.    1081—748, 

773. 
Newport  News,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mercer. 

96  Ky.  475—138,  541,  610.  793. 
Newport  News.   etc..  R.   Co.   v.  Reed. 

10  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1020—507. 
Newport  News,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  United 

States.  61    Fed.  488—821. 
New>tadt  v.  Adams.  12  N.  Y.  Super. 

Ct.    (5  Duer.)    4.3— 600. 
Newton  V.  Pope.  1  Cow.    (N.  Y.)    109 

—106. 
New  York  v.  Reardon,  204  U.  S.  152 

—1735. 
New  York  &  B.  Transp.  Line  v.  Lewis 

Baer  &  Co..   118  Md.  73—295.  297. 
New  York  &  \Va-:hin2ton  Printing  Co. 

v.   Dryburir.    35   Pa.   St.   208—92. 
New  York  Rnard  of  Trade  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co..  3  Int.  Com.  R.  417— 

1782.  1786.  1788,  1832. 
New   York   Cent.   &   H.   R.  R.   Co.  v. 

Shepl"v.  27  N.  Y.  Supp.  185—1128. 
New   York   Cent.   &  H.   R.   R.   Co.  v. 

Warren.  31  Misc.  R.  (N.  Y.)   571— 

1128. 
New  York   Cent.,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Eby 

(Pa.).  12  Atl.  482—570.  740. 
New  York  Cent.,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Inter- 
state   '''ommerce    Commission,    168 

Fed.   131—1856,  1884. 


New  ^'orU  Cent.,  etc..  K.  Co.  v.  Stand- 

anl  Oil  Co..  87  N.  Y.  480—256,  350. 
New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ihiited 

States,  212  U.   S.  481-1774,   1930, 

I!l.i2,    I'.ltU.    1948,    1962,    1973. 
New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United 

States,  203   Fed.  953—1983,  1984. 
New  ^'()^k  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United 

States,    166    Fed.    267—1838,    1942, 

1944,    1956. 
New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weil, 

65  Misc.  R.   (N.  Y.)    179—683,  684, 

918. 
New  York  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Loe.kwood, 

17  Wall.  357—14,  61,  121,  418,  458, 

464,  467,  478,  549,  643,  1033,  1036, 

1264,  1449,  1463,   1457,   1467. 
New  York,  etc.,  Print.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Dry- 
burg.   35   Pa.   St.  298—88. 
New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Atlantic 

Refining  Co.,  129  N.  Y.  597—562. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ball,  53  N. 

J.   L.  28.3—1137,   1572,   1576,   1577, 

1627,  1628. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ball    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  72  S.  W.  885—1573. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bennett,  50 

Fed.   496—1026,   1176. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blumenthal, 

KiO  111.  40—1475. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Burns,  51 

N.   J.   L.   340—1064. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coulbourn, 

69  Md.  361—1615,  1677. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Deer  Creek 

Lumber  Co.,  49  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  453 

—711. 
New  York,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Doane.  115 

Ind.  435—1057,  1234,  1264,  1672. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dougherty, 

11  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  437—1107,  1115. 

1213. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Enches,  127 

Pa.  St.  316—1675,  1680. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Estill.  147 

U.  S.  591—581,  587,  588,  589,  590. 

592.  624.  860. 
New  York,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Fraloff,  ]m 

U.  S.  24—1291.  1294,  1301,  1.343. 
New   York,    etc.,   R.    Co.    v.    Fremont, 

etc.,  R.  Co.    (Neb.),  92  N.  W.   131 

—535,  767. 


TABLE  UF  CASES. 
(The    references   are   to   the   pages.) 


clxxxix 


Kew   York,  etc.,  R.   Co.   v.   Interstate 

Commerce   Com.,    200    U.    S.    361 — 

1772.  1S65,  180(5,  1931. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lockvvood, 

17   Wall.    (U.  S.)    357—14,  61,   121, 

418,   458,    464.   467.   478,   549,    643. 

1033,   1036,   1264.   1449.   1457,  1463, 

1467. 
New  York,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Musluush, 

11  Ind.  App.  192—1282. 
New   York,   etc..   R.    Co.   v.   National 

Steamship  Co!.   137  N.  Y.  23—782. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  Jersev 

Electric  R.  Co.   (N.  J.),  37  Atl.  627 

—1262. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York, 

etc..     R.     Co.,    50    Fed.    867—1823. 

1824,  1826. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New  York, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Int.  Com.  C.  Rep.  702 

—1824. 
New  York,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Piatt,  7  Int. 

Com.  Rep.  323—1762. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sanders,  134 

Mass.  53—644. 
New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Schuvler, 

34   N.  Y.  30—228. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scoville,  71 

Conn.  136—167. 
New  York,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Smith,   62 

Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.)    526—664. 
New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Standard 

Oil  Co..  87  N.  Y.  486—165. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Steinbren- 

ner.  47  N.  J.  L.  161—1269. 
New  York,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Willing.  24 

Ohio  C.  C.  474—1391,  1712. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Winter,  143 

U.  S.  60—1016,  1416,  1418,  1558. 
New    York,    etc..   R.    Co.    v.     York    &, 

Whitney  Co.  (Mass.),  102  N.  E.  366 

680,  1882. 
New    York,    etc..    Steamship    Co.    v. 

Wright   (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  26  S.  W. 
^  107—707. 
New  York  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cravens,  178 

U.  8.  389—1735. 
New  York   L.   Ins.  Co.   v.   Rohrbongh, 

2  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas..  ij  217—541. 
New    York    Produce   Exch.    v.    Balti- 
more  *   Ohio   R.   Co.,   7    Int.   Com. 

Rep.  612—1795. 
New  York.  N.  TI.  .^-  H.  R.  Co.  v.  Bork, 

23  B.  T.  218—1127. 


New  York.  N.  H.  &  H.  R.  Co.  v.  Sco- 

vill.  71   Conn.    136—1127. 
New  York  Produce  Exch.  v.  New  York 

Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co..  2  Int.  Com.  Rep. 

533—1833. 
Nevman  v.  Alabama  C  S.  R.  Co..  172 

Ala.  606— 10:?4. 
Niagara  v.  Cordes,  21   How.    (U.   S.) 

22—20. 
Nicholas  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  68 

Iowa.  732 — 1679. 
Nicholas  v.   New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

R.  Co.,  89  N.  Y.  370—92,  371,  384, 

460,  461,  4(J2,  498,  519.  1463. 
Nicholas  v.   Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  23 

Or.  123—1015.  1028. 
Nicolette  Lumber  Co.  v.  People's  Coal 

Co..  213  Pa.  379 — 626.  702. 
Nicolette  Lumber  Co.  v.  Peoples  Coal 

Co.,  26  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  575—20,  632. 
Nichols  V.   Brooklyn  City   R.   Co.,  30 

Hun    (N.  Y.),  437—1560. 
Nichols   V.   Chicago,   etc.,    R.   Co.,   90 

Mich.  20.3—69,  1246.  1257. 
Nichols  V.  Eddy   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  24 

S.  W.  316—615. 
Nichols    V.    Lynn    &    B.    R.    Co.,    168 

Mass.  528—1215.  1239,  1558. 
Nichols  y.  Oregon  Short  Line  R.  Co.. 

24  Utah,  8.3—710. 
Nichols  V.  Oregon   Short  Line   R.   Co. 

(Utah),  66  Pac.  768-145. 
Nichols  v.  Sixth  Ave  R.  Co.,  38  N.  Y. 

131—1598,  1633,  1645. 
Nichols  y.  Smith.   115  Mass.  332 — 46. 

80.  83,  181,   185,  376. 
Nichols  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  7  Utah. 

510—1429. 
Nicholson  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 

IIS  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)    1.3—1421. 
Nicholson   v.   Great    W'estern   R.   Co., 

94  E.  C.  L.  .366—161. 
Nicholson  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co., 

141  Mo.  App.  199—424. 
Nicholson    v.    W^illan,    5    East.    507 — ■ 

4.30.  482. 
Nickels  v.  Seaboard  .Air  Line  Ry.,  74 

S.   C.    102—1085. 
Nickey  v.   St.   Louis,  etc.   R.   Co.,  35 

Mo.'  App.  79—330.   1458. 
Nicola.  Stone  &   Myers  Co.  v.   T^ouis- 

vilJe  &   N.   R.  Co!,  14  I.  C.  C.  Rep. 

l!ift— 1976. 
Nicoll  v.  East  Tennepsee.  etc.,  R.  Co., 

S"  r.n.  260 — 454.  521.  896. 


cxc 


'lAHI.K  UK  CASKS. 


I'llu'    lofori'iu'cs   uro    to    the    piigea.) 


>iiiiulorI  V.  Mniiliattim  H.  Co.,  4  Ajip. 

Uiv.    (N.  Y.)    415— 17 in. 
>;ieto  V.  Chirk.  1  Cliff   (U.  S.)    Uf)— 

I1:M,    IITC. 
Nilsoii    V.    Oaklaiui     Tiaotion    Co..    10 

Cul.  App.   10;J— !)S3. 
Nines  V.   St.    I.K>uis.  vU\.    R.   Co.,    107 

Mo.  475 — 7(57. 
Nirk  V.  .Jersey  Citv.  ete..  St.  R.  Co., 

7')  N.  J.  U\\y,  «)42— 10!t;{,  lf).-)2. 
Nitro-Clvoerine    Case.    15    Wall.     (U. 

S.)    5-24— 1-28,   12!»,  iJoS.  r)(i.;. 
-XoMe  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Okla. ) 

46  Pao.  4S:i— 1410. 
Noble  V.  St.  Joseph,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co., 

!18  Mich.  240—1218. 
Nolan  V.  Brooklyn  Citv,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

87  N.  Y.   6.S— 1G3!),  'lC40,   1644. 
Nolan    V.    Metropolitan    St.    Rv.    Co. 

(Mo.),  157   S.  W.  637—977.' 
Nolan  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 

N.  Y.  Snper.  Ct.  541—1026. 
Nolton     V.     Tlu>     \Yestern     Railroad 

Corp..  15  N.  Y.  444 — 948,  957,  1030, 

1049,  1052. 
Nonotuck  Silk  Co.  v.  Adams  Express 

Co..  2.56  111.  36—422,  513. 
Nord-Deutcher     Lloyd    v.     President, 

etc.,  of  Ins.  Co.  of  North  America, 

110  Fed.  420—1998.   1999. 
Xorderaever  v.  Loescher,   1    Hilt.    (N. 

Y.)    499—637,    1303,    1304,    1344. 
Norfolk   &   \V.    R.   Co.   v.   Adams,   90 

Va.  393—701. 
Norfolk  &   W.   R.   Co.  v.   Brame,    109 

Ya.  422—1438. 
Norfolk  &  \V.  R.  Co.  v.  Brame   (Va.), 

63  S.  E.  lOlS— 1167. 
Norfolk  &  \V.  R.  Co.  v.  Dixie  Tobacco 

Co.,  228  U.  S.  59,3—1902,  1903,  1911. 
Norfolk  &  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Dixie  Tobacco 

Co.,  Ill  Ya.  8i:i — 1910. 
Norfolk  &  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Hallilier,  89 

Va.  639—974,  975,  989,   1136. 
Norfolk  Ik  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Old  Dominion 

B.  T.  Co..  99  Va.  111—1127. 
Norfolk   &    W.   R.  Co.  v.   Potter.    110 

Ya.  427—276,  599. 
Norfolk  6:   \V.  R.  Co.  v.  Rliodes,   109 

Ya.   176—1502,   1536. 
Norfolk  &  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Stuart's  Draft 

Millin;^  Co.,  109  Ya.  184—382,  763, 

1908.   1912. 
Norfolk  &  W.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

190  Fed.  953—1843. 


Norfolk  .<;  W.  K.  Co.  v.  Wilkinson,  100 

Ya.  775—605.  617. 
Norfolk,  etc,  R.  Co.  v.   Anderson,  90 

Na.  6—949. 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burge,  84  Va. 

70—1544. 
Norfolk,  etc,  R.  Co.  v,  Ferguson,  7!) 

Ya.  241—1626. 
Norfolk,   etc,   R.   Co.   v.   Galliher,   S'.) 

Va.  63!)— 974,  985,  989,  1136. 
Norfolk,  etc,  R.  Co.  v.  Groseclose,  83 

Ya.  2(57—985,  1237. 
Norfolk,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Ihirman,   91 

\'a.  (501—742,  832. 
Norfolk,  etc,  R.  Co.  v.  Irvine,  85  Va. 

217—522. 
Norfolk,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Irvine,  84  Ya. 

55.3—129,  r.i02,  1304,  1330. 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reed,  87  Ya. 

1.S5 — 748. 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reeves,  97  Va. 

2S4— 479. 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shippers  Com- 
press Co.,  83  Va.  272—358. 
Norfolk,  etc,  R.  Co.  v.  Shott,  92  Ya. 

34—1050. 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sutherland,  89 

Ya.  703—742,  816,  926. 
Norfolk,  etc.  R.  Co.  v.  Tanner   (Va.), 

41   S.  E.  721—1459. 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wvsor,  82  Ya. 

250—999,   1071,   1068,   1410. 
Norfolk,  etc,  Terminal  Co.  v.  Rotolo, 

195    Fed.  231— l(i97. 
Noifolk,  etc.  Terminal  Co.  v.  Rotolo, 

101    Fed.  4—1697. 
Norfolk   Southern    R.    Co.   v.   Barnes, 

]04  N.  C.  2,5—263,  642. 
Norman  v.  Binnington,  25  Q.  B.  Div. 

475 — 465. 
Norman  v.  East  Carolina  Rv.  Co.,  161 

N.  C.  330—1072. 
Norman  v.  Soutiiern  Rv.  Co.,  65  S.  C. 

517—1024. 
Normile  v.  Northern  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  36 

Wash.  21—258,  558. 
Normile  v.  Oregon  R.  &  Nav.  Co..  41 

Ore.   177—819,  890,  896. 
Norris  v.  Litchfield,  35  N.  H.   271 — 

1599. 
Norris   v.    Savannali,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   23 

Fla.    182—363.   364. 
Norris  v    St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  239 

Mo.  695—1480. 
North  V.  Mercliants'.  etc.,  Transp.  Co., 

146  Mass.  315 — 225,  742,  752. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CXCl 


(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


North  Baltimore  Pass.  R.  Co.  v.  Kas- 

kell    (Md.),  28  Atl.  410—1494. 
North  Baltimore  Pass.  R.  Co.  v.  Kas- 

kell,  78  Md.  517—1475. 
North  Birmingham  Ry.  Co.  v.  Liddi- 

coat,  99  Ala.  545—1615. 
North  British,   etc.,  Ins.   Co.  v.   Cen- 
tral Vermont  R.  Co.,  158  N.  Y.  726 

— 478. 
North  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Olds,  40 

111.  App.  421—1012.  1146,  1437. 
North  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Baur,  179 

111.   126—1639,    1645. 
North  Chicago  St.   R.   Co.  v.  Broms, 

62  111.  App.  127—1717. 
North  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Cook,  145 

111.  551—1212.  1231,  1237. 
North  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Cotton, 

140  111.  486—1494,  1638. 
North  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Fitzgib- 

bons,  ISO  111.  466—1727. 
North  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Raspers, 

186  111.  246—1615. 
North    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.   v.    Louis 

(111.),  27  X.  E.  451—1507,  1542. 
North  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Polkey, 

203  111.  225—1215. 
North  Cliicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Polkey, 

106  111.  App.  98 — 1097. 
North  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Polkey, 

1  St.  Ry.  Rep.  94—1641. 
North  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Williams, 

140  111.  275—946,  975,   1101,   1639, 

1641. 
North  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Wiswell, 

168  111.   613—1615. 
North  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Wrixon, 

51  111.  App.  307—1114. 
Northern    Alabama    Ry.    Co.   v.    Big- 
wood,  5  Ala.   App.  658 — 889. 
Northern    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    Newman 

(Md.),  55  Atl.  973—1721. 
Northern   Cent.    R.   Co.   v.   O'Connor, 

76  Md.  207—1068,  1009,  1707,  1708, 

1719. 
Northern,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   O'Brien,    1 

Wash.  607—1544. 
Northern  Pac.  Express  Co.  v.  Martin, 

•^0  Can  Sup.  Ct.   13.5 — 487. 
Jsurthern   Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,   192 

U.  S.  440—1404. 
Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  24  S. 

Ct.  408 — 1331. 


Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  116 

Fed.  324—1457,  1663. 
Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    American 

Trading  Co.,  195  U.  S.  39—737. 
Nortnern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Pacific  Coast 

Lumber  Mfrs.  Ass'n,   165   Fed.   1 — 

1880. 
Northern   Pac.   R.   Co.  v.   Pauson,   70 

Fed.  585—1416. 
Northern  Pac.  Terminal  Co.  v.  United 

States,    184   Fed.   603—1978. 
Northern  R.  Co.  v.  Page,  22  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)    130—1070,  1390. 
Northern    Securities    Co.    v.    United 

States,  193  U.  S.  197—1742. 
Northern   Texas   Tract.    Co.   v.    Rove 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  86  S.  W.  621— 

1094. 
Northern  Transp.  Co.  v.  McClarv,  66 

111.   23.3— 582,  590,   750. 
Northern  Transp.  Co.  v.  SeLck,  52  111. 

249—271. 
North    German    Lloyd    v.    Heule,    44 

Fed.   100—525. 
North  Hudson  Countv  R.  Co.  v.  ilav, 

48  N.  J.  L.  401—1564. 
Northington  v.  Norfolk  Ry.  &  L.  Co., 

102  Va.  446—1620. 
l^iorthland    v.    Philadelphia,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  81  Hun   (N.  Y.)    473 — 1351. 
North    ilissouri   R.   Co.    v.    Akers,    4 

Kan.  453—583,  595,  775,  927. 
North   Pennsylvania   R.   Co.   v.   Com- 
mercial Bank,  123  Mass.  727 — 225, 

227,  233,  821. 
North   Pennsylvania   R.   Co.  v.  Kirk, 

90  Pa.  St.  15—1728. 
North  River  Bank  v,  Aymar,   3   Bill 

(N.  Y.)   202—228. 
North  River  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Living- 
ston, 3  Cow.    (N.  Y.)   713—1758. 
Northrop   v.    City   of   Richmond,    105 

Va.  341—709. 
Nortlirop    v.    Syracuse,    3    App.    Dee. 

(N.  Y.)   386—198,  393,  398. 
Northrup  v.  Raihvav  Pass.  Assur.  Co., 

43  N.  Y.  516—989. 
North  Side  St.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Want  (Tex.) 

15  S.  W.  40—1484,  1507. 
North  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Schwartz,  82  '11. 

App.    493— 14P- 
Nortliwpstern  1"        Co.  v.  Burlinirton, 

etc.,  Ry.  Co..  L(>  Fed.  712— US. 
Northwestern  Iowa  Grain,  etc.,  Assoc. 


CXl'U 


TABM>:  OF  CASKS. 
(The    ri'fi'i»'iic('s   aro   to    Uio    paj^os.) 


V.  Chiraj^o,  ett-.,  K.  I'o.,  i  Int.  Com. 
Hop.  4:n  — 17!)l.   lS-27. 
Xoitiiwi'sti'iii    'Iraiisp.    (."o.    \.    Liitci-, 

107  I'Vd.  ;tri;i— 20-ji. 

Noithwostorii  U.  l\  Co.  v.  I'lough,  22 

Wall.    [V.  S.)    r.'iS— !)S7. 
North  Yakima  niewiii}:  &  Maltiii<ir  Co. 

V.  NorthiMii   I'ac.  ivv.  Co.,  40  W  asli. 

;]75— 20 1 . 
Norton  v.  Coluinhia  KIpc.  St.  Ry.,  etc., 

Co..  8:<  S.  C.  2(i— lt)83. 
Norton    v.    Galveston,    etc.,    Ry-    Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  108  S.  W.  1044— 

ir);{7. 
Norton  v.  North  Carolina  R.  Co..  122 

N.  C.  910—1517. 
Norton  v.  St.  Louis  &  H.  Rv.  Co..  40 

I\Io.  App.  642— 1.52G. 
Norton  v.   The  Richard  Winslow.   67 

Fed.  250-1989. 
Norvell  v.  Kanawlia  &  M.  Ry.  Co.,  67 

W.  Va.  467—1157.  1650. 
Norwalk  Bank  v.  Adams  Express  Co., 

4    HIatclif.    (U.   S.)    455—210. 
Norway  Plains  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,    1    Gray    (Mass.)    272—41    44. 

263.  380.  382,  413. 
Norwich  Co.  v.  Wright,  13  Wall   (U. 

S.)    104 — 1451. 
Notara  v.  Henderson,  L.   R.  5  Q.  B. 

225—33,  35. 
Noval  V.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  87  N. 

Y.  63—1487. 
Nowack  V.  Metropolitan  St.  Rv.  Co., 

166  N.  Y.  43:3— 1168. 
Nowlen  v.  Colt.  6  Hill   (N.  Y.)   461— 

267. 
Noves   V.   Rai'.road,    27    Vt.    110—42, 

741,   755. 
Xudd  V.  Wells,  11  Wis.  407—343,  358, 

600. 
Xupent  V.  Fair  Haven  &  W.  St.  Ry. 

Co..    73    Conn.    13!)— 1647. 
Nugent  V.  Smith,  1  C.  P.  Div.  27,  697 

—21,  23,  24,  28,  33,  71,  75,  823. 
Nugent  V.  Tract.  Co.,  181  Pa.  8t.  160 

—1519. 
Nunn  V.  Georgia  R.  Co.,  71  Ga.  710— 

69,  1256,  1257. 
Nunnelee  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

145   Mo.  App.   17—557. 
Nussha-un  v.  Louisville  R.  Co.,  22  Kv. 

Law  r.op.  271—1441. 


Niitler    \.   Snwtliern    l!y.   Co..   25   Ky. 

Liiw    i;.'i>.    1700— !»!l!».    1390. 
\  111  ting   \.   Cdiinecticiit   River    H.  (/O., 

1  Gray   (.Mass.)  502—739,  757,  704. 


0. 

Oakes  v.  Northern  Pae.  R.  Co.,  20  Or. 

392—1291,   1292,   1301,   1306. 
Oakey   v.   Gordon,   7    La.   Ann.   235 — • 

766. 
Oakey  v.  Russell.  18  Mar.   (La.)   58— 

75.' 
Oakley    v.    Portsmouth,    etc.,    Steam 

Packet  Co.,  11  Exch.  618—15. 
O'Bannon  v.  Southern  Express  Co.,  51 

Ala.  481—175,   183. 
Oberndorfer  v.  Pabst,  100  Wis.  505— 

102. 
Ober  V.  Crescent  City  R.  Co.,  44  La. 

Ann.    10.-)9— 1615. 
O'Brien    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    15 

Gray  (Mass.)  20—1017,  1390,1396, 

1445. 
O'Brien  v.  Cunard  Steamship  Co.,  154 

Mass.  272—1133. 
O'Brien  v.   McGlinchy,  68  Me.  557— 

373. 
O'Brien  v.  New  York  Central,  etc.,  R, 

Co.,  80  N.  Y.  236—1396,  1397. 
O'Brien  v.  St.  Louis  Transit  Co.,  212 

Mo.  59—1170. 
O'Callaghan    v.    Dellwood    Park    Co., 

242   ill.   336—1480. 
O'Callaghan    v.    Dellwood    Park    Co., 

149  111.  App.  34—946. 
Ocean  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Savannah  Locomo- 
tive Works  &  Supply  Co.,   131   Ga. 

831—120. 
Oceanic  Steam  Nav.  Co.  v.  Aitken,  196 

U.   S.  589—1987,   1988. 
Och  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  Mo. 

27—1475.  1487. 
O'Connell  v.  St.  Louis  Cable,  etc.,  R. 

Co..  106  Mo.  482—1213,   1215. 
O'Connor  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co., 

120  Minn.  359—513. 
O'Connor  v.  Great  Northern  Rv.  Co., 

118   Minn.  223—1883. 
Oderkirk  v.  Fargo,  58  Hun    (N.  Y.) 

347—392,  405.  406. 
Odom  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  La. 

Ann.   1201—1581. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CXClll 


(The   references  are   to  the   pages.) 


O'Donnel    v.    St.    Louis    Transit    Co. 
(Mo.    App.),    SO    Mo.    App.    315— 
1167,  1713. 
O'Donnell  v.  Allei?heny  Valley  R.  Co., 

.59  Pa.  St.  23!)— 106.5,  1082. 
O'Donnell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  lOG 

111.   App.  287— J).').5.   972,  986. 
O'Donnell  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

197  Mo.   110—10.59. 
O'Donnell  v.  Louisville  &   N.   R.  Co., 

19  Kv.  L.  Rep.  1005 — 1655. 
O'Donnell   v.    St.    Louis   Tr.    Co.,    107 

Mo.  App.  34—1167. 

O'Doughertv   v.   Boston,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

1  Tliomp'.  &  C.    (N.  Y.)    477—197, 

206,  219,  271. 

O'FIaherty  v.  Nassau  Elec.  R.  Co.,  34 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   75—1116,  1508. 

O'Gara  v.  St.  Louis  Transit  Co.,  204 

Mo.  724—1503. 
Ogden  V.  Marshall,  8  N.  Y.  340—368. 

609. 
Ogdensburg.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pratt,  22 
Wall    (U.   S.)    123—418,   539,   753, 
756,  758,  765,  804,  1457. 
Ogdensburg,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Pratt,  102 

Mass.  557—804. 
Ogdensburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pratt,  49 

How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)  84—754. 
Ogdensburg  Harp  v.  The  Grand  Era, 

1  Woods  (U.  S.)    186—738. 
Ogle  V.  Atkinson,  5  Taunt.  759 — 210, 

530,  532. 
O'Gonnan  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
96    App.    Div.    (N.   Y.)    594—1068, 
1077. 
O'Hanlan  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  6 

B.  &  S.  484 — 5S3,  58.5,  599. 
Ohio  &  M.  R.  Co.  V.   Burrow.  32  111. 

App.   161—1446. 
Ohio  Cent.  Traction  Co.  v.  Mateer,  31 

Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  R.  478-1622. 
Ohio  Coal  Co.  v.  Whitcomb,  123  Fed. 

359—709,  714. 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allender,  59  111. 

App.  620—988,  1017. 
Ohio,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Allender.  47   111. 

App.  484—1613,  1637. 
Ohio.   etc..   R.   Co.   v.    Applewhite.   52 

Ind.  .540—1227,  1228,   1255. 
Oliio.  oU:,  R.  Co.  V.  Burrows.  32   111. 

App.    161  —  1710.    1712. 
Ohio,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Crosby,   107    ind. 
32—1715. 


Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dickerson,  59  Ind. 

317—1056,  1714. 
Ohio,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  Dunbar,  20   111. 

623—51,  838. 
Ohio,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Emrich,  24   111. 

x\pp.   245—342,   766. 
Ohio,   etc.,   R.  Co.  v.   Hamlin,  42  111. 

App.  441—452,  742. 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Hatton,  61)  Ind. 

12—1228,  1256,  1410. 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Hecht,   115   Ind. 

443—1706,  1727. 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCarthy,  96  U. 

S.  258—753. 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Muhling,  30  III. 

9—990,  1056,  1390,  1461. 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nickless.  71   Ind. 

271—8,  991,   1031,  1450,  1467. 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Noe,  77  111.  513— 

625,  651. 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Schiebe,  44  111. 

460—1261,   1571,  1672.   lOl^O. 
Ohio,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shelby,  47   Ind. 

471—455,  1031,  1037,  1450,  14G1. 
Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Stanberry,    132 

Ind.  533—1666. 
Ohio,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Stratton,  78  III. 

88—1676. 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tabor.  98  Ky.  503 

—485,  880. 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tyndall,  13  Ind. 

366—1063. 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Voight,  122  Ind. 

288—1049,  1500,  1505. 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  107  Ind.  32 

—1716. 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yohe,  51  Ind.  ISl 

—328,  329. 
Ohio  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Lander,  20  Ky. 

Law  Rep.   913,  926— lOfiO. 
Ohio  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Wat.son,  93  Ky. 

6.54-1085,   1264,   1554. 
Ohio  Valley  Trust  C( .  v.  Wernke,  42 
Ind.  App.   326,  84  N.  E.  999-102, 
103. 
Ohliger     v.     Toledo   Traction    Co.,    23 

Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  Rep.  65—1718. 
Oil    Creek,    etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Clark,   72 

Pa.   St.  231—1015,   1070. 
O'Keefe  v.  Eighth  .\ve.  R.  Co.,  X\  App. 

Div.   (N.  Y.)   324—1560. 
Oliuita  Coal  Min.  Co.  v.   l?eech  Creek 

R.  Co.,   144   Fed.   150—131. 
Obott    V.     Fond    du    Lac    Coniitv,    10 
WmII.    (C.  S.)   678—121,  390.  ' 


CXCIV 


TA15LE  OF  CASES. 
(Tlic    referoncos   are   to    the   piigea.) 


OK'ovii-h   v.   Craiul   Trunk    l\y.   Co.   tif 
raniula  (Cal.  App.).  l.i'.>  I'ac.  '2U0— 
ItV-'G. 
Old  Colony  R.  Co.  v.  Tripp,  147  Mass. 

35—1127,    1142.    i:U)4,    140!). 
Old    Colony    R.    Co.     v.     WiUlir.    i:!7 

Mass.  S.Ui — 2(52. 
Old  Dominion  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Flanary  & 

Co..   Ill   Va.  81G— I'Jli),  1!)24. 
Oldlicia  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 

N.  Y.  310—1545.   1591. 
O'Leary   v.   ]Mankato,   21   Minn.    G5 — 

155G. 
Olds  V.   New   Y'ork,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   172 

Mass.  73 — 12G5. 
Olds  V.  New  Y'ork  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

107  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   26—791. 
Oler  V.   Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   13 

Mo.  App.  81—591. 
Oliver  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co..  65  S. 

C.  1—1459,  1719. 
Oliver  v.   Ft.   Smith  L.  &  T.  Co.,   89 

Ark.  222—1652. 
Oliver  v.   Louisville,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  43 

La.  Ann.  804—1638. 
Oliver   V.   New   York,  etc.,   R.   Co.,    1 
Edm.  Sel.  Cas.   (N.  Y.)  589—1082, 
1211. 
Olscn  V.  Citizens  Ry.  Co.,  152  Mo.  426 

—1269,  1488. 
Olson   V.   Northern   Pac.   Ry.   Co.,   49 

Wash.   626—1075,   1418. 
Olson    V.    St.    Paul,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    45 

Minn.  536—1037,  1243,  1717. 
Olund   V.    Worcester    Consol.   St.   Ry. 

Co.,  206  :Mass.   544—965. 
Olwcll  V.  Adams  Express  Co.,  1  Cent. 

L.  J.   186—458. 
Omaha,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Chollette,  41 

Neb.  578—1563. 
Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crow,  47  Neb. 

S4— 1037,  1038. 
Omaha,  etc.,  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate 

Com.  Com.,  179  Fed.  243—1778. 
Omaha    St.   R.   Co.  v.   Emminger,   57 

Neb.  210—1561. 
Omaha  St.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Martin,  48  Neb. 

0.5- L545,  1615. 
O'Mallev  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  86 

Minn.'  580-419.  .521,  889. 
Oman  v.  Bedford-Bowling  Green  Stone 

Co..  134  Fed.  64—184. 
O'^Tara   v.   Hudson   River  R.   Co.,   38 

N.   Y.   445-1587. 
O'Mara  v.   St.  Loui=?  Tr.   Co.    (Mo.), 
7C  S.  W.  680—1620. 


O'.Mara  v.  St.   I.ouis  Transit  Co.,  102 

Mo.  Ai)p.  202—975,  9S-4. 
Oiulordoiik  v.  Central  Nat.  Bank,  119 

N.   Y.  263—13. 
Ondi-rdonk  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
74    llun    (N.    Y.),    42—1125,    1231, 
ICCit). 
One    lluiulnd  and   Fifty  One  Tons  of 
Coal,  4  Blatchf.    (U.  S.)    364—643, 
644. 
One  Hundred  and  One  Live  Stock  Co. 
v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  Mo. 
App.  674-816,  890,  902. 
One  Hundred  and  Seventy  Five  Ton.«j 
of    Coal.    Fed.    Cas.    No.    10,522    (9 
Ben.  400)— 676. 
O'Neil  V.  Dry  Dock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   129 

N.  Y.  125—1507. 
O'Neill  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  7  U. 

C.  C.  P.  203—386. 
O'Neill  V.  Lvnn  &  B.  R.  Co.   (Mass.), 

29  N.  E.  630—1401. 
O'Neill   V.   New   York   Cent.,   etc.,   R. 
Co.,   3   Thomp.  &   C.    (N.   Y.)    399, 
60   N.   Y.    138—83,    l(i9,    171,    375, 
376. 
One     Thousand     Two     Hundred     ami 
Sixty  Five  Vitrified  Pipes,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  10,536   (14  Blatchf.  274)— 676. 
Ontario  Bank  v.  New  Jersey  Steam- 
boat Co.,  59  N.  Y.  510—206. 
Oppenheim   v.  Russell,   3   B.  &  P.   42 

—630,  643. 
Oppenheimer  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  18 

N.  Y.  Supp.  411—1181. 
Oppenheimer  v.  United  States  Express 
Co.,    69    111.    62—36,    425,   427,    490, 
493,  496,  522,  1452. 
Opsahl  V.  Judd,  30  Minn.   129—1033, 

1599. 
Orange     County     Bank    v.    Brrnvn,    9 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  85—36,  62.  490,  523, 
526.  1291,  1295,  1302,  1308. 
Orcutt  v.  Century  Bldg.  Co.,  214  Mo. 

35—1529. 
Orcutt  V.  Century  Bldg.  Co.,  201  Mo. 

424—959,  1538. 
Orcutt   V.   Northern    Pac.   R.   Co.,   45 

Minn.  368—1038. 
O'Regan    v.    Cunard    S.    S.    Co.,    160 

Mass.  356—451,  951,  1455. 
Oregon  R.  &  Nav.  Co.  v.  Coolidge,  59 

Or.   .5—657,  683. 
Oregon  R.  &  Nav.  v.  Thislcr    (Kan.), 

133  Pac.  539—1835. 
Oregon  Short  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  I!- 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CXCV 


(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


waco   R.,   etc.,    Co.,    51    Fed.   611— 

799. 
Oregon    Short    Line,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Jsurthern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  61   Fed.   158 

—122,  734,  1795,  1823,  1824,   1825. 
Oregon    Short    Line,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Northern  Pac.   R.  Co.,  51   Fed.  465 

—734,  7S2,  1824,  1826. 
Oregon-Washington  R.  &  Xav.  Co.  v. 

United  States,  205  Fed.  337—1983. 
Ormandroyd  v.  Fitchburg  &  L.  St.  R. 

Co.,  193  Mass.  130—1206. 
Ormsby  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  4  Fed. 

706 — 345,  426,  488,  581,  873. 
Ormsby  v.   Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  2  Mc- 

Crary   (U.  S.),  48—881. 
Orndortf    v.    Adams   Express   Co.,   3 

Bush     (Ky.),    194—429,    494,    526, 

1458. 
O'Rorke  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  23 

U.  C.  C.  B.  427—431,  445. 
OTlourke  v.  Bates,  73  Misc.  Rep.  414 

—19. 
O'Rourke  v.   Bates,   133   X.  Y.   Supp. 

392—1,  11. 
O'Rourke  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44 

Iowa,  526—36,  559. 
O'Rourke  v.  Citizens'  St.  R.  Co.,  103 

Tenn.  124—1417. 
Orr  V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  21   Mo. 

App.  33.3—778. 
Orth  V.  Saginaw  Valley  Traction  Co., 

162  Mich.  353—1622. 
Ortt  V.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

Minn.  396—450,  740,  757,  767. 
Osborn   v.    Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    48 

Fed.  49—720,  1827. 
Osborn  v.  Inion  Ferrv  Co.,  53  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)   029—1130.' 
Oscanvan     v.     Winchester     Repeating 

Arms  Co..   103  U.  S.  261—454. 
Osgood  V.  Bauder,  75  Iowa,  550 — 450. 
Of^good   V.  Carver,  43   Conn.  24,  30— 

281,  .328. 
Osgood  V.  Los  Angeles  Tract.  Co.,  137 

Cal.  280—1218. 
Oskamp  v.  Gadsden.  35  Xeb.  7—95. 
Oskamp     v.     Southern     Kxpre.ss     Co. 

(Ohio).  56  N.  E.  13—211. 
Osterhondt  v.   Southern   Pac.   Co.,  47 

Anp.   Div.    (N.   Y.)    146- 480,   482, 

483. 
Ostervoung  v.   St.  T>ouis  Transit  Co., 

108  Mn.  App.  703— 1. •'.92. 
Ostrandf-r   v.    P.rnwn,    15    Johns.    (N. 

Y.)    39 — 2.''>S.  200. 


Cstroot  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  Ill 

Minn.  504 — 513. 
Oswtgo  Bank  v.  Doyle,  91  N.  Y.  32— 

23o. 
Otis  Co.  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  112 

Mo.  622—190,   191,  448,  576. 
Otrich  V.   St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   164 

Mo.  App.  444—787,  29,  839,  1904. 
Ouellette  v.  Grand  Trunk  Ry.  Co.,  106 

Me.  153—1669. 
Ouimit  V.  Henshaw,  35  Vt.  605 — 187, 

385,    1296,    1297,    1350,    1351,    1353. 
Outen  V.  North   &  S.   St.   R.   Co.,   94 

Ga.  662—1593. 
Overby  v.  McG«e,   15  Ark.  459—531. 
Overland  Mail,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Carroll,  7 

Colo.  43—1457. 
Oviatt    V.    Dakota    Cent.    R.    Co.,    43 

Minn.  300—1213. 
Owen   V.   Louisville,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   87 

Ky.   626—481,   848,   484,   798,   881, 

927. 
Owen  V.   Railway   Co.,   83   Mo.    464— 

627. 
Owens  V.  Atlantic  Coa^^t  Line  R.  Co., 

152  N.   C.  43:1—1578. 
Owens  V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

147— X.   C.   357-1686. 
Owens  V.   Baltimore,  etc,,  R.   Co.,   35 

Fed.  7  Li— 1705. 
Owens  V.  ]\lacon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119  Ga. 

230—1142. 
Owens  V.  Riclimond,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   88 

N.  C.  502—1541. 
Owens    V.    Wabash    Ry.    Co.,    84    Mo. 

App.    143—1162. 
Owens    V.    Wilmington   &   W.    R.   Co. 

(N.  C),  35  S.  E.  259—1192. 
Owcnsboro   &  N.   R.   Co.   v.   Newhoff, 

12  Ky.  Law  Rep.  467—1356. 
Oxiade  v.   North    Eastern   R.   Co.,    15 

C.  B.  N.  S.  454—117,  126,  127. 
Oxley   V.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   65 

Mo.  629 — 419,   485,   881,  927. 
Oysterbank    v.    Gardner,    49     N.     Y. 

Super.  Ot.  263—1533. 
Ozanne   v.    Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.,    151 

Fed.  900—1112,  1113. 


Pacific  Coast  Co.  v.  Yukon  Independ- 

ant  Tmnsp.  Co.,  155  Fed.  29 — 2032. 

P.icific   Coast   S.    S.    Co.   V.    Board    of 


cxevi 


TAl'.Ll':  Ol'  CASKS. 
(I'lu'    rt'lVrnu'is   ate    (o    llio    paj:;fs.) 


Hailrortil    Coiu'is    (C.   V.),    IS    V\d. 

10 — isr>s. 

riu'ilic  Kxpross  Co.   v.   liiaik.  S  IVx. 

Uiv.  App.  3(53 — IST.lU;. 
l*;u-i!i<.-   Jixprt'ss   Co.   V.   C'rit/AT    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  4-J  S.   W.    1017—237. 
I'ncifie    Kxpross    Co.    v.     Darnell,    02 

Tex.  031)— 1)04.  UltJ. 
Pacilic  Express  Co.  v.  Darnrll   (Tex.), 

(i  S.  W.  71)5—482. 
I'lvoific  Kxpress  Co.  v.  Darm-il   (Tex.), 

32  Am.  &  Kng.  K.  Cas.  .■)43— ()20. 
r.u-ilic  Kxpross  Co.  v.  Foley,  40  Kan. 

4r)7— 4H3,   1458. 
I'.uilic  Express  Co.  v.  Gatright   (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),    130    S.   W.    103.-.— 002. 
I'aeilic  Express   Co.   v.  HcrlzlK?rg,   17 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  100—210. 
Pacific  Express  Co.  v.  Jones,  53  Tex. 

Civ.   App.   307—020. 
Pacific  Express  Co.  v.  Redman    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  00  S.  W.  677-003. 
Paeific  Express  Co.  v.  Ross   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),   154  S.  W.  340— 4!)5,  515. 
Pacific  Exjuess  Co.  v.  Seibert,  44  Fed. 

310—1777. 
Pacific    Expre-ss   Co.   v.    Shearer,    160 

111.   215—211,  235,  276,  285. 
Pacific    Express    Co.    v.    Wallace,    60 

Ark.   100—264,  325,  488. 
Packard  v.  Getraan,  4  Wend.   (N.  Y.) 

015—233,   270,   277,  285. 
Packard  v.  Getman,  6   Cow.    (N.  Y.) 

757—172,    184,    188. 
Packard  v.  Tavlor,  35  Ark.  402—26, 

739.  774,  775. 
Packet  Co.  v.  Xagle,  97  Ky.  9—1722. 
Paddock  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.   Co.  37 

Fed.  848—08,  1273. 
Paddock  v.  :\Iissouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  155 

Mo.  524—934. 
Paddock  v.  ^^lissouri   Pac.   R.  C<).,  60 

Mo.  App.  328—440,  851. 
Paddock   v.   Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.,    1 

Mo.   App.    Rep.    87—440,    438,   592. 

795. 
Paddock    v.   Toledo,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    21 

Ohio  C.  C.  R.  626—420. 
Paddock   v.   Toledo,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.,    11 

O.  C.  D.  789—197. 
Padeitt  v.   Moll,   159   Mo.    143—1643. 
Padfcv  v.  Catterlin,  64  Mo.  App.  648 

— .'>89. 
P:idiKah,    etc..     R.    Co.    v.    Common- 
wealth, 80  Kv.    147—1082. 


I'adiieah,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    lloelil.    12 

Hush    (Ivy.),  47—1544. 
Piulueah  St'  Ky.  lo.  v.  W  a'sh,  22  Ky. 

I..    I{ep.   532—123!!. 
I'adueaii   Traction   Co.    v.    Baker.    130 

Ky.  300—1524. 
Paganini   v.  North  .)ers«'v   St.   R.  G). 

(\.  .J.),  57  All.   128—1081. 
Pago    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    7    S. 

Dak.  297—757. 
Page  V.  Croat  Northern   H.  Co.,  2  Ir. 

Rep.    (C.   1>.)    288—102. 
Page   V.    Jjondon,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    10    \V. 

R.  500—541. 
Page  V.   Munroe,   1   Holmes    (U.   S.), 

232—163,  590. 
Paige  V.  Hubbard,  1  Sprague  (U.  S.), 

338—648. 
Paigo  V.  Smith,  115  Mass.  332—46. 
Paige  V.   Smitli,  99  Mass.  395—46. 
Paine    v.    Geneva,    etc.,    Tr.    Co.,    115 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    729—1091. 
Paine   v.    Geneva,   etc..   Traction   Co., 

101  N.  Y.  Supp.  204—1529. 
Painkinsky    v.    Illinois    Cent.   R.    Co., 

105   111.  App.  556—476. 
Painter  v.  Chicago  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  93 

Neb.  419—1540. 
Painter     v.     Chicago,     e.tc.,     R.     Co. 

(Nob.),  140  N.  W.  787—1001. 
Palfrey  v.  United   Rys.   Co.,    162  Mo. 

App.  470—983. 
Palmer  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   101 

Cal.    187—119,   342,   302,   364,    448, 

730. 
Palmer   v.   Charlotte,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   3 

S.   C.   580—1027,   1721,    1726. 
Palmer   v.    Chicago,    etc..   R.    Co.,    56 

Conn.  137—242,  752,  774. 
Palmer  v.   Delaware,   etc..   Canal   Co., 

120    N.    Y.    170—947,    1107,    1116, 

1118,    1120,    1125.    1211. 
Palmer  v.  Grand   Junction   R.   Co.,   4 

M.  &  W.  749—33,  42,  432. 
Palmer  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  (3o.,  L.  R. 

1   C.  P.  588—127,  158. 
Palmer  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co..  L.  R. 

6  C.  P.   194—158. 
Palmer  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  123 

N.  Y.  Supp.  47—1384. 
Palmer   v.    Pennsylvania    Co.,    Ill    N. 

Y.    488-1081,  'll08,    1125. 
Palmer  v.  Warmn  S^.  R.  Co.,  206  Pa. 

574-1487,  1494,  1580. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CXCVl) 


(The  references   are   to  the   pages.) 


Palmer  v.   Winona  Ry.  &  Light  Co., 

7S  Minn.    138—1218. 
Palmer  v.  Winston-Salem  PvV.  &  Elec. 

Co..  131  N.  C.  250—1168. 
Palmeri  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  133  N. 
Y.  261—948,  1156,  1166,  1175.  1182. 
Palmer  v.  Transfer  Co.  v.  Smith,   137 

Ky.  319—1289. 
Pal  meter    v.    Wagner,    11    Alb.    L.    J. 

149—63. 
Paquin  v.   St.  Louis  &   S.  R.   Co.,   90 

Mo.  App.   118—1627. 
Paradine  v.  Jane,  AUeyn,  27 — 14. 
Paramore  v.   Western   R.   Co.,  53  Ga. 

833—734. 
Pardee  v.   Drew,   25   Wend.    (N.   Y.) 

459—75,   76.  523.    1297,   1300. 
Pardington  v.  South  Wales  R.  Co.,  1 

H.  &  N.  392—466. 
Paris   &   G.   N.   Ry.   Co.   v.   Robinson 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  114  S.  W.  658— 
1140,  1196,   1539. 
Paris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robinson    (Tex. 

Sup.),   140  S.  W.  434—1196. 
Paris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robinson    (Tex. 
Civ.   App.),    127   S.   W.   294—1196. 
Parish  v.  Ulster  &  D.  R.  Co.,  192  N. 

Y.   353—1416. 
Park  V.  O'Brien,  23  Conn.  339—1541. 
Park  V.  Pre.ston,   108  N.  Y.   434—30, 

189,  433    446.  452,  569. 
Park  V.  Southern  R.  Co..  78  S.  C.  302 

—  1367,   1373,    1345,    1348,    1381. 
Parker  v.   Atlantic,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   133 

H.  C.  335—419,  440,  457. 
Parker  v.   Boston   M.  R.   Co.,   84  Vt. 

329—1504. 
Parker   v.    Erie   R.    Co.,    5    Hun    (N. 

Y.),  57—1155. 
Parker  v.  Flaj^g,  26  Me.  181—26,  75, 

196. 
Parker  v.  Ivombard,   100  Mass.  405 — 

410. 
Parker  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  13  ITun 

(N.  Y.),  319—1702,  1719. 
Parker  v.  Metrnpnlilan  St.  R.  Co.,  69 

Mo.  App.  54-1215. 
Parkor  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 

Wis.  089—386.  395. 
Parker  v.  St.  Tx>uis  Tr.  Co.,  108  Mo. 

App.  46.5-1681. 
Parker   v.  The   Railway  Co.,   6   El.   & 

B.  77-105. 
Pitr's-or   V.   Ignited   Rvs.  of   St.   Louis, 
154   Mo.   App.   126—1683. 


Parker  v.  White,  27  New  Bruns.  442 

—1228. 
Parkur  v.  Winslow,  7  El.  &  Bl.  942— 

350. 
Parker-Bell  Lumber  Co.  v.  Great  Nor- 
thern Rv.  Co.,  69  Wash.  123—1904. 
Parks  V.  Alta,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.,   13  Cal. 

422—90. 
Barks  v.   Kentucky   Cent.   R.   R.   Co., 

3  Ky.  Law  Rep.  691—1284, 
Parks   V.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   29 

Tex.   Civ.  App.   551—1107 
Parmalee   v.   Lowitz,   74   111.    116 — 61, 

74,  527,  944,  945. 
Parmalee  v.   McNulty,    19    111.   556 — 

944. 
Parmalee  v.  Western  Transp.  Co.,  26 

Wis.  439—81,  760. 
Parmelee    v.    Fischer,    22    111.    212 — 

1291,    1296. 
Parmelee  v.  Wilke,  22  Barb.    (N.  Y.) 

539—56,  350. 
Pai-menter    v.    American    Box    Mach. 

Co.,  102  N.  Y.  648-285. 
Parmenter    v.    American    Box    Mach. 
Co.,  44  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)    47—276. 
Parrent  v.  Rhode  Island  Co.    (R.  I.), 

72  Atl.  865—1490. 
Parrill   v.   Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   23 

Ind.  App.  638—455. 
Parsons  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   167 

U.  S.  447—162,  1772,  1798. 
Parsons   v.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    63 

Fed.   903—1790,   1828. 
Parsons   v.   Empire   Transp.   Co.,    Ill 

Fed.    202-2003. 
Parsons  v.  Hardy,  14  Wend.   (N.  Y.) 
215—27,    53,   "242,    272,    315,    343, 
359.  368. 
Parsons  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  130 

Mo.  App.  494—597. 
Parsons   v.   Monteath,    13    Barb.    (N. 
Y.)    353—310,  429.  460,  4()7,    1461. 
Parsons  v.   New  York   Cent.,   eitc.   R, 

Co.,   113  N.  Y.  355—1013,  1156. 
Parsons   v.  New  York   Cent.,   etc.,   R. 

Co..  37  Ilun    (X.  Y.),  128—1690. 
Parsons  v.  United  States  Express  Co., 

144  Iowa,  74.5—288. 
Partello  V.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  240 

Mo.    122—1480. 
P^utelow  V.  Newton  &   B.  St.  R.  Co., 

196   Mass.   24—1088. 
Partridge     v.    Woodland      Steamboat 
Co..  06  N.  J.  L.  290—1187,  1202. 


Cicvni 


TABLE  OF  CASKS. 
(The   rcftTcnci'S   are   to   the   pages. 


Pasooll   V.  North  Jersoy  St.  Ky.  Cp., 

75  N.  J.  L.  83t>— 1484. 
Paiiseugor  Cases,  7  J  low.    (U.  S.)    2S3 

—1731,   1732,  1734,  1747. 
Passenger   K.   Co.   v.    Young,   21   Ohio 

St.  ;")1S— 114J),   11G7. 
Passniore  v.  WesU'm  Union  T<1.  Co., 

78  Pa,  St.  2:JS— 88. 
Pastore  v.  American  Express  Co.,  138 

X.  Y.  Supp.  3  hi — 504. 
Patehell    v.    Irish    North    Western    R. 

Co..  G  Ir.  K.  C.  L.   117—1270. 
Pat«  V.  Columbia  &  P.  S.  K.  Co.,  52 

Wash.   100— 14!)  1. 
Pate  V.  Henry,  5  Stew.  &  P.    (Ala.) 

101—249. 
Paterson   v.  Philadelphia  R,  Tr.  Co., 

218  Pa.  35!1— 1485. 
Pattee  v.  Clueago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Dak. 

267 — 1083,   1554. 
Patten  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  29  Fed, 

590—038,  752,  773,  782. 
Patterson  v.  Clyde,  67  Pa.  St.  505— 

576,  577,  578. 
Patterson  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co,, 

56  Mo.  App.  657 — 431,  538,  769. 
Patterson    v.    Missouri,    etc.,   R.    Co., 

24  Okl.  747-877,  883. 
Patterson  v.  North   Carolina  R.   Co., 

64  N.  C,   147—325. 
Patterson  v.   Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90 

Iowa,   247—1237. 
Patterson  v.  W:ibash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54 

Mich.    91—1552,    1563. 
Patterson's  Adm'r  v.  Ijouisville  &  N. 

R.   Co.,   138   Ky.   648—1629. 
Patton    V.    ]\Iagr:!th    Dudley    L.     (S. 

C.)    159 — 458,  1452. 
Patton   V.    Southern   R.   Co.,   82   Fed. 

979—548. 
Patton  V.  Texas  &  P.  Ry.   Co.    (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),    137   S.   W.   721—1908. 
Paturzo  V.   Campajrnie   Francaise,   31 

Fed.  611-552,  553. 
Paul   V.   Pennsylvania   R.   Co.,   70  N. 

J.  L.  442—419,  814. 
Paul  V.   Pennsylvania  R.   Co.    (N.   J, 

Sup.),   57   Atl.    139—457. 
Paul   V.    Salt    Lake    City   R,   Co.,   34 

Utah,  1— 14S4. 
Paulitseh  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,    102   N.  Y.  280-1240,    1613. 
Paulson   v.  Brooklyn   Citv  R.  Co.,   13 

Misc.  Rep.    IN.  Y.)    387—1017. 
Pavitt  v.   Lehigh  Valley  R.   Co.,   153 


Pa.    St.    302—481,    483,    522,    551» 

8119. 
Payne  v.  llalsU-ad,  44   111.  App.  97— 

1488. 
Payne    v.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    155 

Fed.    73— lUlU. 
I'aNne  v.  Kansas  &  A.  V.  R.  Co.    (U. 

C.   W.  D.  Ark.),  46  Fed.  546—124, 

733. 
Pavne    v.     Spokane    St.     R.    Lo.,     15 

Wash.  522—1215. 
Payne   v.   Terra   Haute,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

157   Ind.  616—1465. 
Pavne    v.    Trov,   etc.,    K.    Co.,   9    Hun 

(N.  Y.),   526—1557. 
Pavntnr  v.  Bridgeton,  etc.,  Tr.  (  o.,  07 

N.  J.  L.  619—1470. 
Pt  abody  v.  Navigation  Co.    (Or.),  26 

Pac.    1053—1415. 
Peak's   Adm'r  v.   Ixjuisville   &   N.    R. 

Co.,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  2157—1678. 
Pearce   v.    Madison,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   21 

How.    (U.  S.)    441—779. 
Pearce    v.    The    Thomas    Newton,    41 

led.   106—338. 
Pearce  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  89  Mo.  App. 

437—027,  662. 
Pearsall    v.    Western   Union   Tel.    Co., 

124  N.  Y.  256—92,  434. 
Pear«on  v.  Duane,  71  U.  S.   (4  Wall.) 

60.i— 26,    130,   996,    1136,    1144. 
Pearsons  v.  Tincker,  36  Me.  384 — 633, 
Pease  v.    DeLaware,  etc.,    R,   Co.,    101 

N.  Y.  367-1273,  1297. 
Peat    V.    Hartford    St.    Ry.    Co.,    72 

Conn.  362 — 1240. 
Peavoy  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  81  Ga. 

485—1170,   1193,    1407. 
Peavy  &  Co.  v.  Union  Pac,  R.  Co.,  176 

Fed.  400-1809. 
Peck   v.   Chicago  Creat  Western   Rv, 

Co.,  138  Iowa,  187—791,  897,  910, 

930. 
Peck  v.  Neil,  3  McLean   (U.  S.)   22 — 

1120,  1.-552,  1553. 
Peek  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  N 

Y.    587—1068,     1155,     1*166,     1180, 

1409,  1434. 
Peck   v.   New   York   Cent.    R.    Co.,    6 

Sup.  Ct.    (N.  Y.)    409—1716. 
Peck   v.   North   Staffordshire   R.   Co 

10  H.  L.  Cas.  473—428. 
Peck   v.    St.   Louia   Transit   Co.,    178 

Mo.  617—1680. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are  to   the   pages.) 


cxeix 


Peck  V.  Weeks,  34  Conn.  145—34,  426, 

1451. 
Pecos  &  N.  T.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Cox    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),   150  S.  W.  265—1905. 
Petos  &  N.  T.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Crews   (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),    139    S.   W.    1049-868, 

886,  1919,  1924. 
^     Pecos  &  N.  T.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Porter  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  15*6  S.  W.  267-1843. 
Pecos,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.   v.   Bivins    (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    130    S.    W.    210— o98, 

869. 
Pecos,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Brooks    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  145  S.  \V.  649—874. 
Pecos,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crews  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),    139   S.   W.    1049—868,   886, 

1919,    1924. 
Pecos,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dinwiddie   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  146  S.  W.  280—938. 
Pecos,   etc.,   R.    Co.    v.    Evans-Snider- 

Buel  Co.,  100  Tex.  190—841,881. 
Pecos,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Evans-Snvder- 

Buel    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),   93    S.   W. 

1024—803. 
Pecos,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Francis    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),   138  S.  W.  797—930. 
Pecos,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Hughes    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  98  S.  W.  410—899. 
Pecos,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Jarman    (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),    138   S.   \V.    1131—791, 

868. 
Pecos  River  R.  Co.  v.  Latham,  40  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  78 — 538. 
Pecos  River  R.  Co.  v.  Revnolds  Cattle 

Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  i35  S.  W.  162 

—1836. 
Pecos  Valley  &  N.  E.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Har- 

ria,  14  N.  M.  410—1882. 
Teebles    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    112 

Mass.  498—568. 
Peek  V.  North  StaflFordsliire  R.  Co.,  9 

Jur.  N.  S.  914-463. 
Peek   V.    North    Staffordshire   R.    Co., 

10  H.  L.  Cas.  473 — 419,  46.5. 
Peek    V.    St.    Louis    Transit    Co.,    178 

Mo.   617—1477. 
Peerless  Mfg.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co..  73  N.  H.  328—320. 
Peet  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Wis. 

594—135,    138,    139,   355,   550,   599, 

760,  762. 
Pegler   V.   Monmouthsliire   R.   Co.,   30 

L.  J.  Exoh.  249—42. 
Pegram  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  97 

N.  C.  57—92. 


Peik  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  U.  S. 

164—389,  1753. 
Peixotti  V.  :McLaughlin,  1  Strobh.   (S. 

C.)   468—62,  1302. 
Pelot  V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

60    Fla.    159—1177. 
Pelton  V.  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54 

N.  Y.  214—384,  398. 
Pemberton  Co.  v.  New  York  Cent.  R. 

Co.,  104  Mass.  144—766,  1450. 
Pence  v.   Wabash   R.   Co.,   116   Iowa, 

279—1576,    1608. 
Pendall  v.  Reuch,  4  McLean   (U.  S.) 

259—26. 
Pender  v.  Robbins,  6  Jones  L.  (N.  C.) 

207—5,   13. 
Pendergast  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  101 

Mass.  120—739,  767. 
Pendergast  v.  Union  Ry.  Co.,  10  App. 

Div.    (N.   Y.)    207-1089,    1455. 
Pendleton  v.  Kinsley,  3  Cliff   (U.  S.) 

416—1147,  1150,  1211. 
Pendleton    St.    R.    Co.    v.    Shires,    18 

Ohio  St.  255—1081. 
Pendleton  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Stallman,  22 

Ohio   St.   1—1081. 
Penfield  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26 

App.   Div.    (N.   Y.)    413—1072. 
Peniston  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   34 

La.  Ann.  777—1241. 
Penn  v.  Buffalo,  etc..  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y. 

204—784,  823,  905. 
Pennifeather      v.      Baltimore      Steam 

Packett  Co.,  58  Fed.  481—546. 
Pennington   v.   Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co., 

252  III.  584—1414. 
Pennington    v.    Philadelphia,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    62   Md.    9.5—1025,    1455. 
Penniwill  v.  Cullen,  5   Harr.    (Del.), 

238—11. 
Pennsylvania    Canal    Co.    v.    Bentley, 

66  Pa.  St.  30—1534. 
Pennsylvania  Canal  Co.  v.   Burd,   90 

Pa.' St.   281—79. 
Pennsylvania  Cent.  R.  v.  Schwarzen- 

burger,   45    Pa.   St.   208 — 428,   740, 

767. 
Pennsylvania    Co.    v.    Clark,    2    Ind. 

App.  146—119,  343,  352,  838. 
Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Dean,  92  Ind.  459 

—1261. 
Pennsylvania    Co.    v.    Dickson     (Ind. 

.\pp'.),  67  N.  E.  538-730. 
Pennsylvania  Co.  v.   Faircliild.  (5!)   [11. 

260^49. 


00 


TABLE  Dl-'  CASKS. 


('riic    n-fi'it'iu'i's    arc    to    tlio    puj^cs.) 


Pi'iinsvlvania  Co.  \.  I  line.    II  Oliii)  St. 

•27(!— lO'j:..    141!). 
Pemisvlvaiiia     I'o.     \.     liiiaujliiiKl,     7S 

linl."  20.S— l-i42.    124:{.    Itii;!. 
Peiinsylvania     Co.    v.     Kcaii.     11     111. 

App".   .T17— KillO. 
PtMiiisvlvaiiia  Co.  v.  Kiiuiani  (Jlass  & 

Paiiit  Co.    (iNeb.).  81   N.   W .  :{72— 

457. 
Ponnsvlvaiiia   Co.  v.   Kenwood   Bridge 

Co..'  170  111.  (Uf)— lit;}.  M\-2. 
Peiinsvlvaiiia  Co.  v.  l^onliart,  120  Fed. 

61  —  1301. 
Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Liverifj^lit.  14  Tnd. 

App.  r)lS— .")7().  l.SoO,   \:\M\. 
Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Marion,   12H  Ind. 

415— l(i7fi.    1()77. 
Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Marion.  104  Tnd. 

231)— 1120,    1477,    1500,    1555.    1715. 
Pennsylvania    Co.    v.    McCaffrey.    173 

III.  "loo— lono. 

Pennsylvania    Co.    v.   Miller.   35   Ohio 

St.  541  —  1208.  1.353,  135G. 
Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Scofield,  121  Fed. 

814—1430,    1711. 
Pennsylvania    Co.    v.    Woodwortli,    26 

Ohio   St.   385—1054. 
Pennsylvania   Co.   v.   Yoder,   25   Ohio 

C.  C.  R.  32 — 410,  457.  485,  576. 
Pennsylvania   Nav.   Co.   v.   Dandridge 

8  Gill  &.  J.   (Md.)   248-57. 
Pennsylvaniii.  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  53  Pa. 

St.  270—1716.  1727. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  y.  American  Oil 

Works.   126  Pa.   St.  485 — 499,  630, 

642. 
Pennsylvania    R.   Co.   v.    Anoka   Nat. 

Bank,    108    Fed.    482—573. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Aspoll,  23  Pa. 

St.  "147— 1234,     1254,     1256.     1571, 

1582,    1675,   1680,   1703,    1700. 
Pennsylvania   R.   Co.   v.   Baldauf,    16 

Pa.  "67-1353. 
Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v.    Baltimore, 

etc.,'  R.  Co.,  60  Md.  263—728. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Berry,  68  Pa. 

St.  272—339,  755,  058. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Books,  57  Pa. 

St.  '  339— 058.     1057,     1131,     1553, 

1702.  1714.  1728. 
Pennsylvania    Co.    y.    Bray,    125    Ind, 

220—1418,   1712. 
Pennsylvania   R.   Co.   v.    Bulah   Shaft 

C>pJ  Co..  42   Pa.  Super.  Ct.   187— 

605. 


rciiMsx  Ivania  R.  Co.  v.  Butler,  57  Pa. 

St.  '335—1031. 
IVnnsvlvania    H.    Co.    v.    Clark,     118 

Md.'  514—350. 
Pennsylvania    K.   Co.   v.   Connell,    112 

111.  ■205— 1300.    1705,    1711.    1712. 
rennsvlvania    K.  Co.  v.    Fries,  87   Pa. 

SI.  '234—1450. 
rennsylvania    R.   Co.   v.    Goetchius   & 

Cap'erton.   135  Ga.   176—337. 
I'ennsvKania  11.  Co.  v.  Henderson,  51 

Pa.    St.    315—8,    001,    1037,    1451, 

1407.   1557. 
I'ennsylvaiiia  R.  Co.  v.  Hensil,  70  111. 

560—1510. 
Pennsylvania   R.    Co.   v.    Hughes,    191 

U.  S.  477—000,   1826,  1852. 
Pennsylvania    R.  Co.  v.  International 

Coal  Mining  Co.,  230   U.  S.   184— 

1887. 
PenTisylvania  R.  Co.  v.  International 

i\y.il  Mining  Co.,  173  Fed.  1—1805, 

18S7. 
Peniisyhania    R.    Co.    v.    John    Anda 

Co.,'  131  111.  App.  426 — 475. 
Pennsylvania    R.   Co.   v.    Keally,   232 

Pa.  "567— 682. 
Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v.    Kilgore,    32 

Pa. 'St.  204—1237,  1246,  1557,  1676, 

1677,    1679. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Knight,  58  N. 

J.  L.  287—1304,  1331,  1376. 
Pennsylvania   R.   Co.   v.   Langdon,   92 

Pa.'St.  21—1,572,  1628. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Lyons,  129  Pa. 

St.  '113— 1247,     1477,     1560,     1582, 

1675. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Marshall,  147 

App.   Div.    (N.  Y.)    806-600. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  McCaffrey,  149 

Fed'.   404—1530. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  McCloskey,  23 

Pa.  St.  532—1243,  1451,  1460. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  y.  McKinney,  124 

Pa.  St.  402—1477. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Midvale  Steel 

Co.,' 201  Pa.  624—694. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  87  Pa. 

St.  '3f)5— 570. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Mogi,  128  N. 

Y.   Supp.   64,3—1885. 
Pennsylvania    R.    Co.   v.   Moody,    126 

Pa.'st.  244—1.520. 
Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v.    Naive,    112 

Tenn.  239—203,  348,  388,  572. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are   to   the  pages.) 


CCl 


Pennsylvania   R.   Co.   v.   Pennock,   51 

Pa.  St.  244 — 330,  332. 
Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v.    Peters,    116 

Pa.  St.  206—1213,  15S2,   1676. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Price,  96  Pa. 

St.  261—946,  954,   1021. 
Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v.    Purvis,    128 

111.  App.  367—1467,  1496. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Raiordon,  119 
Pa.    St.    577 — 457,    571,    516,    578, 
906,   1459. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Reed,  60  Fed. 

694—1567. 
Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v.    Righter,   42 

X.  J.  L.   180—1520. 
Pennsylvania   R.   Co.   v.   Roy,   102  U. 
S.   451—681,   805,   945,    1106,    1119, 
1121,   1155,   1211. 
Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v.    Samuel,    45 

Pa.  Supp.  Ct.  248—694. 
Pennsylvania    R.    Co.   v.   Spearen,   47 

Pa.  St.  300—1533. 
Pennsylvania   R.   Co.   v.   Spicker,   105 

Pa.  St.    142—1024. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Stageneier,  118 

Ind.  30.5—1580. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Stern,  119  Pa. 

St.  24—215,  220,  233. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Titus,  78  Misc. 

R.   (N.  Y.)   347—656,  670,  683. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Titus.  142  N. 

Y.  Supp.  43 — 656,  671. 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Titusville,  etc.. 

Plank  Road   Co.,   71   Pa.  St.  350— 

619. 

Pennsylvania  R.   Co.   v.  Vandiver,   42 

Pa.  St.  305—1131,  1149,  1181,  1426. 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Webir,  76  Pa. 

St.   157—1545. 
Pennsylvania  U.  Co.  v.  White,  88  Pa. 

St.  327—1226,  1229,  1690. 
Pennsylvania   R.   Co.   v.   Zebe,  33   Pa. 

St.  318—1664. 
Pennsylvania    Steel    Co.    v.    Georgia, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  C,a.  636—641. 
Penny  v.  Atlantic  f'oiist  Line  R.  Co., 

153  N.  C.  296—1697. 
I'enny  v.  Alhuitic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

145  N.  C.  296 — 1152. 
Penny  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

133  X.  C.  221—1190. 
Penny    v.    Rocliester    R.    Co.,    7    App. 

Djv.    (X.  Y.)    595—1114. 
Prnsacola    Td.    f'o.    v.    Western     I'n. 


Tel.   Co.,   96   U.    S.    1—1734,    1736, 
1737. 
People  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  111 

188 — 10S2. 
People  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  111 

95—407. 
People  V.   Caryl,  3   Park.  Crim.  Rep. 

(X.  Y.)   326—1407. 
People  V.   Colorado   Cent.   R.   Co.,   42 

Fed.  638-123. 
People  V.  Douglass,  87  Cal.  281—959 

1021,  1513. 
People  V.  Folsom,  5  Cal.  373—1891. 
People   ex   rel.   v.   Hudson   River   Tel 
Co.,   19  Abb.  N.  C.    (N.  Y  )    478— 
1143. 
People  ex  rel.  v.  Hudson  River  Teleph 
Co.,  10  St.  Rep.   (X.  Y.)   284—1409. 
People  V.  Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  122  111 

506—148. 
People   V.   Jillson,    3    Park.    Cr    Rep 

(X.  Y.)    234—991,  992,  1012. 
People  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co     120 

111.  48—1230. 
People  V.  Manhattan   Gas  Light  Co 

45  Barb.  (X.  Y.)   136—95. 
People  V.  Xew  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R   Co 

63  How.  Pr.    (X^  Y.)    291— 1 94 
People  V.  Xew  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R  Co 
28  Hun  (X.  Y.),  543—121,  123.  I24' 
369,  1135,  1136.  >         ,         , 

People  V.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co     46 

X.  J.  L.  7—1099. 
People  V.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R    Co     02 

Hun    (X.  Y.)    533—124,  609      ''  " 
People  V.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co     89 

N.  Y.  226-1082.  ' 

People  V.  Xew  York,  etc..  R.  Co     55 

Hun    (X.  Y.),  409—1107. 
People     V.     Raymond,    34    Cal     49-^— 

1758. 
People  ex  rel.  Hatch  v.  Reardon    184 

X.   Y.   431—17.30,    1731.    1738.  ' 
People  V.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  114  Fed 

12.3—549. 
People's  Pa.ss.  R.  Co.  v.  Green,  56  Md 

84—1066,   1644. 
People's   State  Savings   Bank   v.   ]\ris- 
souri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  158  Mo.  Ann   519 
—910. 
Penria  Bank    v.    Xorthorn    R     Co      58 

X.  ?1.  20.3—220. 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicinxn,  etc     R 
Co..    lO't   III.   135—51,   104.   116,   122. 


ecu 


taiu.l:  o\'  casks. 

(The    n-foroneos   iiro    to   tlio    pages.) 


Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoerr,   120   HI. 

App.  65— KV.tO. 
Peoria,    etc.,    K.    Co.    v.    l.aiie.    83    111. 

449—1083,  lli28. 
Peoria,   etc.,    H.    Co.    v.    Reynolds,    88 

111.  418— lOS-2,  1083,  1117.  loUO. 
Peoria,   etc..   K.   Co.   v.   Inited   States 

Kollinj,'  Stoek  Co..   130   111.  043—30, 

51.  122.  403.  750. 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Lo.   v.   I'nited   States 

Rolling  Stock  Co..  28  111.  App.  79— 

41,  104. 
Pepper  v.  Western  I'nion  Tel.  Co.,  87 

Tenn.  554—91. 
Percy   v.    Railroad    Company,    58   Mo. 

App.  75 — 1415. 
Perego   v.    Lake    Shore   &   M.   S.    Ry. 

Co.,   158  Mich.  225—1688. 
Pereira  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  66  Cal. 

92—734.  754,  755,  757.  761. 
Pere  Marquette  R.  Co.  v.  Strange,  171 

Ind.  100—978.  979. 
Perishable     Freight     Transp.     Co.     v. 

O'Neill,  41  111.  App.  423—551. 
Perkett  v.   Manistee  &   N.   E.   R.   Co. 

(Mich.),  141  N.  W.  607—297. 
Perkins   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   60 

Miss.  726—1056,   1058. 
Perkins  v.  Missouri,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   55 

Mo.  201—1148.  1181,  1426. 
Perkins  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24 

N.   Y.    196.   219—6,    145.    418,    460, 

549.    975.    1030,    1084,    1120.    1131, 

1331,   1449,   1460,   1461,   1462,   1463, 

1405. 
Perkins  v.  Portland,   etc.,  R.   Co.,  47 

Me.  573—582.  739.  754,  1361.  1362. 
Perley  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

65  N.  Y.  375—1299,  1300. 
Perlmutter   v.   Highland  St.   Ry.   Co., 

121  Mass.  497—1559. 
Perret  v.  Sanvinet.  2  La.  Ann.  559 — 

671. 
Perrine  v.  North   Jersey   St.   Ry.   Co. 

(N.  J.),  55  Atl.  755—1393. 
Perrv  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

9  Ga.  App.  200—1419. 
Perrv  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  66  Ga.  740 — 

1230.  1240. 
Perry  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Mo. 

App.  49—858. 
Perrv  v.  Florida  Cent.,  etc..  R.  Co.,  3 

Int.  Com.  Rep.  740—1782.  1797. 
Perry  v.  Malarin.  107  Cal.  363—1124. 


Wvvv  V.   Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  41  Pa. 

Super.  Ct.  59"l— 1074. 
Perrv     v.     Pliihulilpliia,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(l)el.    Super.),    77    Atl.    725—1053, 

1470. 
Perry    v.    Tlunnpson,    98   Mu-^s.    249 — 

447,  1452,  1450. 
Persliing  v.   Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   71 

Iowa.  561-1082,    1083,   1115,   1500. 
Peters  v.  Elliott,  78  111.  321—226. 
Peters   v.   New   Orleans,   etc.,    R.   Co., 

16  La.  Ann.  222—804,  822. 
Peters  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  34 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    353—1426. 
Peters   v,   Rylands,  20  Pa.   St.   497— 

75. 
Peterson   v.   Case,   21   Fed.   885—590, 

773,  775,  776. 
Peterson   v.   Chicago,   etc.,  R.  Co.,   80 

Iowa,  92— l.S6u. 
Peterson  v.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.    (S. 

D.),  102  N.  W.  595—906. 
Peterson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119 

Wis.  197—1465. 
Peterson  v.   Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9 

Kulp  (Pa.),  552—1607,  1617. 
Peterson  v.  Elgin,  etc.,  Traction  Co., 

238  111.  40.3—981. 
Peterson  v.  Elgin,  etc..  Traction  Co., 

142   111.   App.   34—993. 
Petrault    v.     Emporium    Department 

Store  Co.,  71  Wash.  523—102. 
Petrie  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  42  N". 

J.  L.  449—1015,  1391,  1415. 
Pettigrew   v.   Barnum,   11   Md.   449 — 

1297. 
Petty  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

5  C.  P.  461—1220. 
Petty  V.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   149 

Mb.  App.  360—1415,  1429. 
Pettviohn  V.  Oretrnn  Coal  &  Nav.  Co., 

58  Or.  392—2025. 
Pfaelzer  v.  Palace   Car  Co.,  4   W.  N. 

C.  (Pa.)   240—65. 
Pfeffer  v.  BnfTalo  R.  Co.,  4  Misc.  Rep. 

(N.  Y.)    465—1241,  1616. 
Pfister  V.   Central  P.  R.  Co.,   70   Cal. 

169—116,   125,  1054.  1291,  1296. 
P.   Garvin.    Inc.    v.    New   York    Cent., 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  210  Mass.  275—383. 
Pharr  v.   Collins,  35  La.  Ann.   939 — 

629. 
Phelps  V.  Bank,  2  McGloin   (La.),  19 

—233. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


CCIH 


Phelps  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  94  111, 

548—130. 
Phelps  V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   19  C. 

B.  (N.  S.)  321—1292,  1293,  1295. 
Phelps  V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116  E. 

C.  L.  321—1291. 

Phelps   v.   Mankato,   23    Jlinn.   276 — 

1556. 
Phelps  V.  Williamson,  7  N.  Y.  Super. 

Ct.    (5  Sandf.)    578—662. 
Phettiplace  v.  Northern   Pac.  R.  Co., 

84   Wis.  412—1429. 
Phifer  v.    Carolina   Cent.   R.   Co.,   89 

N.  C.  311—740,  767,  769.  780,  781. 
Philadelphia  v.  Larkin,  47  Md.  155 — 

1721. 
Philadelphia  &   R.   Ry.   Co.  v.   Inter- 
state   Commerce    Commission,    147 

Fed.  687—1805. 
Philadelphia  &  R.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Kast,  28 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.   107—1293. 
Phila.  Citv  Pass.  R.  Co.  v.  Hassard, 

75  Pa.  St.  367-1589,  1644. 
Philadelphia    City    Pass.    Rv.    Co.    v. 

Henrice,  92  Pa.  St.  431—1507. 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson, 

94    Pa.    St.    351—314,    1083,    1120, 

1121,   1212,   1213.   1475,  1501,   1690. 
Philadelphia,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Anthonv, 

43  Tnd.  183—1180. 
Philadelpliia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnard, 

3  Bpu.   (U.  S.)   39—525. 
Philadelphia,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Crawford, 

112  Md.  508—1169. 
Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.   Derby. 

14  How.    (U.  S.)    408-7,  948.  9.57. 

992.   10.30,    1031,    1033,   1148.    1211, 

1264,  14G0,  1644. 
Philadelphia,    etc,   R.    Co.   v.    Diffen- 

dale.  109  Md.  494—3.37. 
Philadelphia,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Dows,  15 

Phila.   (Pa.)    101-644. 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Edelstein, 

23  W.  N.  C.   (Pa.)   342—1226. 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Green,  110 

Md.  32—979. 
Philadelpliia,   etc.,  R.    Co,   v.  Harper, 

29  Md.  330—324,  1363, 
Philadelphia,  etc..  R.   Co.  v.  TToeflich, 

62  Aid.  300—1391,  1702,  1711,  1720. 
Philadelphia,  ptc,  R,  Co.  v,  Kerr,  25 

Md.  521—1510. 
Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.   Co.   v,   Larkin, 

47  Md,   15.5—1434,  1713, 
Philadflphia.  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Lehman. 


56    Md.    209—247,    618,    788,    838, 

1599. 
Philadelphia,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   McCor- 

mick,  124  Pa.  St.  427 — 1226, 
Philadelphia,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Ramiey, 

89  Pa.  St.  474—757. 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rice,  64 

Md,  63—1417,  1418. 
Philadelphia,  etc,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  58 

Md.  372—778. 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stebbin". 

62  Md,  504—1476,  1510,  1534, 
Philadelphia,   etc,  R,   Co.  v.  Walker, 

45   Pa,   Super.  Ct,  524—683, 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co,  v,  Wireman. 

88  Pa,  St.  264—213, 
Philadelphia,    etc.    Steamship    Co.   v. 

Pennsylvania,  122  U.  S,  326 — 175S!. 
Philadelphia  Tract,  Co.  v.  Orbann,  119 

Pa.  St.  37—1019, 
Philleo  V.  Sanford,  17  Tex.  231 — 27. 
Phillips  V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R,  Co., 

90  S,  C.   187—1444, 

Phillips  V,  De  Wald    (Ga,),  7   S,  E. 

151—1267. 
Phillips  V.  Duquesne  Tract.  Co.,  8  Pa, 

Super,  Ct.  210-1589, 
Phillips  V,  Earle,  8  Pick,  (Mass.)    182 

— 185,  523.  526,  527. 
Phillips   V.   Georgia   R,,   etc.,   Co.,   93 

Ga.  356—1452,  1454,  1458, 
Phillips  V,  London,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  5  C. 

P.  Div.  280—1717. 
Phillips  V.  London,  etc,  R.  Co.,  5  Q, 

B.  Div,  78—1715,  1727,  1728, 
Phillips  V.  Louisville  &  N.  R,  Co.,  8 

Int.  Com,  Rep,  93 — 1785. 
Phillips  V.  North  Carolina  R.  Co.,  78 

N.  C,  294—740,  754.  761,  779. 
Phillips  V,  Northern   R,  Co,,   62   Hun 

(N.   Y,),  23.3—1624, 
Phillips  V,   Railroad  Co.,   93   Ga,  356 

—306, 
Phillips  V.  Rensselaer,  etc,  R.  Co.    49 

N.  Y,  177—1598,  1613,  1614, 
Phillips  V,  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R,  Co.,  57 

Barb.    (N.  Y,)    644—1557, 
Phillips  V.  Rodie.   15  East,  547 — 629 
Phillips  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  124  N.  C 

12.3—978, 
Phillips    Co.    V,   Pruitt,   26   Kv.   Law 

Rep,  831—1165, 
Phnenix    Clay    Pot    Works    v,     Pitts- 

burirh,  etc,  R.  Co,,  139  Pa,  St,  284 

—•151.  572, 


lAKLE  OV  CASKS. 
(The  rcffrrnooN  are  to  the  pages.) 


.rk.- 


Sunds.  55       rim 


riiuiiix  (."iav   l'i>l   \\ 

Pu.  St.   140—571. 
Pluvuix   Ills.  I'll.  V.   Krie,  ete..    Traiisn. 

Co..  117   I'.  S.  ;n2— 454,  5U>.    I  H'.». 
PluiMii.x   III;*.  Co.  V.  Krie,  ele..  Transp. 

Co.,  10  Hiss.   (C.  S.)    IS— 54(i. 
riiiriiix    Towder    Mfj,'.   Co.   v.   Wal)asli 

R.  Co.,   1-20   Mo.  AiM).  5liU— 4;}!>. 
Pieard   v.   Uidge   Ave.    P.    K.   Co.,    147 

Pa.  St.  1!15— Kilo. 
Piekard  v.  Crand  Junetion  R.  Co.,   12 

M.  &   W.  7(!ti— 1S6. 
Piekard  v.  PuUinan  Southern  Car  Co., 

117  U.  S.  :U— 1747. 
Pickens  v.  Rieliniond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104 

N.  c.  312— i:?ii(>,  i;?n7. 

Pickering  v.  Barklev,  Style.  132—324. 
Pickering   v.   Weld,    159  Mass.   522— 

25S. 
Pickett  V.  Central  of  C>a.  Ry.  Co.,  138 

Ca.   177— 15t)S. 
Piekford    v.    Grand    Junction    R.    Co., 

12  M.  &  VV.  7Gfi— 127,  131,  351. 
Piekford    v.    Grand    Junction    R.    Co., 

8  M.  &  VV.  372—132,  1G5. 
Picquet  v.  McKay,  2  Blatchf.    (Ind.) 

40.5 — 15. 
Piedmont  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Columbia,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  19  S.  C.  .35.3—2,  25,  42,  97, 

458.  740,  757,  759,  1452,  1455,  1459. 
Pier  V.  Finch,  24  Barb.    (N".  Y.)    514 

—1024. 
Pierce  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Ga. 

App.  66G— 15.32,  1682. 
Pierce  v.  Milwaukee,  etc..  R.  Co.,  23 

Wis.  387—9. 
Pierce    v.    Randolph,    12    Tex.    290— 

10C8. 
Pierce  v.   Southern   Pac.   R.   Co..   120 

Cal.  15G— 316. 
Pierce  v.  Van  Dusen,   78   Fed.   706 — 

1562. 
Pierce  v.  Winsor,  2  Cliff.    (U.  S.)    18 

—553. 
Pierson  v.  Northern  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  61 

Wa^h.  450—883,  894. 
Pierson  v.  Xorthem  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  52 

Wash  595— P08. 
Piggott  V.  Fastern.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  C. 

B.  229-1478. 
PiVe  V.  Nash.  3  Abb.  App.  Dec.    (N. 

Y.)   610—86. 
Pike  V.  Nash,  1  Keyes  (N.  Y.),  335— 

12,  13. 


Tr.  Co.,  lOS  Mo.  App. 


Co.,    (it; 

Co.,  n; 

Co.,  146 


St.  i-uui^ 
713—1681. 
I'inius  V.  Atlantic  Coast   Line  K.  Co., 

140  N.  C.  450—980. 
rindell   v.   St.    I/iuis.  etc.,   K.  Co.,   41 

Mo.  App.  S4— 3tU,  394. 
I'iiidell    V.   St.    Louis,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   34 

Mo.  App.  675—203,  398. 
I'iiider    V.    l5rooklvn    Ileiirlits    R.    Co.. 

65  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)   '521  —  1166. 
Pine    Bluir   &    A.   R.    Ry.   Co.    v.    Mc- 

Ken/ie,  75  Ark.   100—177. 
Pine    Bros.    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    11.    Co., 

153    Iowa,    1—839. 
Piiiurec    V.    Detroit,    etc.,    R. 

.^ii(•h.   143—37.  32S,  633. 
Pinkerton  v.  Mis.souri  Pac.  R. 

Mo.  App.  288—312. 
Pinneil  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R. 

111.  App.   150—862. 
Pinnev    v.   First   Div.   St.   Paul,   etc., 

R.  Co.,   19  Minn.  251—385.  398. 
Pinney  v.  Wells,  10  Conn.   104,  115— 

625;   643,   G48. 
Pinson  v.  Southern  Ry..  85  S.  C.  355 

—1197. 
Piper  V.  Boston  &,  M.  R.  Co.,  75  N.  H. 

228—1054. 
Piper   V.   Manny,  21   Wend.    (N.   Y.) 

282—1375. 
Piper  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

156  N.  Y.  224—68,  1214. 
Pitard  v.  New  Orleans  Ry.,  etc.,  Co., 

120  La.  925—1623. 
Pitcher  v.  Central  of  Ga.  R.  Co.,  155 

Ala.  316—596,  620,  622. 
Pitcher   v.    Lake   Shore,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

137  N.  Y.  568—1607. 
Pitcher  V.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 

Hun    (N.  Y.),  623—1036. 
Pitcher  v.  People's  St.  R.  Co.,  154  Pa. 

St.  560—1617. 
Pitkin    V.    New    York    Cent.,    etc.,    R. 

Co,    94    App.    Div.     (N.    Y.)     31  — 

1234. 
Pitlock   V.    Wells,    Fargo   &   Co.,    109 

Mass.  452—127,   175. 
Pittman  v.  Pacific  Express  Co.    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  59  S.  W.  949—449. 
Pittshnrgli  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Rv.  Co.  v. 

Wood   (Ind.  App.),  84  N.  E.  1009— 

126. 
Pitt-;])urg  Coal  Co.  v.  Bates,  156  U.  S. 

577—1735. 
Pittsburgh,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   American 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CL-V 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Tobacco  Co.,  31  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1013 

—170,  177. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Andrews,  39 

Md.  329—1506.  1642,  1655,  1717. 
I*ittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baltimore, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  Rep.  729— 

1792,   1832,   1854. 
Pittsburgh,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Barrett,  36 

Ohio  St.  448—30,  83,  185,  375,  376, 

433,  434. 
Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Bennett 

(Ind.  App.),  35  N.  E.   103.3—1543. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bishop,  13 

Ohio  C.  C.  Rep.  380—952. 
Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.,Co.  v.  Brigham,  29 

Ohio  St.  364—1019,  1126. 
Pittsburgh,     etc..     R.     Co.    v.    Brown 

(Ind.),   97   N.   E.    145—1037,   1467, 

1473. 
Pittsburg,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Caldwell  74 

Pa.  St.  421—996,  1031,  1057,  1253, 

1588.  1595,  1644. 
Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  242 

III.   178—123,  292,  317,  .326.  533. 
Pittsburgh,   etc..   R.    Co.   v.   Dunn,   56 

Pa.  St.  280-1082. 
Pittsburgh,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Gray,   28 

Ind.    App.     588—998,     1008,     1011, 

1577. 
Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gray    (Ind. 

App.),  59   N.  E.   1000—1534.   1676. 
Pittsburg,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.  v.  Grom,  142 

Ky.  51—951,   1531. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hazen,  84 

HI.  36—248,  326,  369,  370,  571. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hennigh,  39 

Ind.  509—1414. 
Pittsluirgh.   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Hinds,  53 

Pa.    St     512—24,   948,    1133,    1140, 

1186,   1194. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  H.  L.  Mooar 

Lumber  Co..  27  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  Rep. 

588 — 027,  702. 
Pittsl)urgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  HoUowell, 

65  Ind.  188-36,  146,  248,  326,  370, 

571. 
Pittsburgh,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Hunt 

(Ind.).  80  N.  E.  .■i;iS— 1827. 
Pitt-burgh,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Knox,   177 

Ind.  344—1904.  1924. 
PittHl>urg.     etc.,     Ry.     Co.     v.     Kno.v 

(Ind.),  98  N.  E.  295-247. 
PJttsl)urfr,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Krousi'.  30  Oliio 

Sf.  '^22— 980,  997,  1012,  1576,  1079, 

1080. 


Pittshurirh.    etc.,    Co.    v.    Ligliteap,    7 

Ind.  App.  249—1076,  1255. 
Pittsburgh,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Lyon.   1-23 

Pa.  St.  140—1070,  1303,  1304.  1702, 

1720,  1724. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Martin.   3 

Ohio  Dec.  93—997,  1612. 
Pittsbursj,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McClurg,  56 

Pa.  StT  294—1106.  1.506,  1642,  1655. 
Pittsburgh,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Mitchell, 

175  Ind.  196 — 443,  1802,  1909,  1924, 

1926. 
Pittsburgh,   etc.,   Rv.  v.  Mooar  Lum- 
ber Co..  27  Ohio"  Cir.  Ct.  R.  588— 

627,  702. 
Pittsburgh,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Morton,  01 

Ind.   539—119,   739. 
Pittsburgh,   etc..    R.   Co.   v.    Xash,   43 

Ind.  423—381,  394. 
Pittsburgh,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Nuzuni.  60 

Ind.  533—1228. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nuzum.  50 

Ind.  141—1227,  1255,  1410,  1676. 
Pittsburgh,  etc..   R.  Co.  v.  Pillow,  76 

Pa.  St.  510—1069,  1187,  1140,  1401, 

1407,    1486,   1512. 
Pittsburgh,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Racer,    5 

Ind.  App.  209—136.   144,   154,  350, 

942. 
Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Redding, 

140    Ind.   101—1425. 
Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Russ,    67 

Fed.  662—1435. 
Pittsburgh,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Russ,   57 

Fed.  822—1725. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Shepman, 

171  Ind.  71—1108,  1662. 
Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Sheppard, 

55   Ohio   St.   68—586. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Slusser,  19 

Ohio  St.  157—1149,  1167. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spencer.  98 

Ind.    186—1268,    1269, 
Pittsl)urgh.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Street  (Ind. 

App.)   59  N.  E.  404—1414. 
Pittsl)urgh.   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Throbold. 

51    Ind.  247—1148. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson, 

50  111.'  138-1082,  1083,  1115.   1118, 

1500,    1512,   1728. 
Pittsburgh,   etc..    R.   Co.   v.   Vaiidyne, 

57   Ind.  570—1140,  1407. 
I'itlsburgti,  etc.,   K.  Co.  v.  Van    llou- 

ten,   48    Ind.   90—1265,    1407. 


WVl 


TA15LK  OV  CASKS. 
(The  refiMOia-oj*  are  to  llic  piigos.) 


riltsliurp.   etc..    U.    Co.    v.    Viors,    IKi 

Kv.  52G— 921. 
Pittsl.ui^h.  etc..    R.   Co.   v.    Williams, 

71   Imi.  402—1082,  loOl. 
rittsburgli.   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Wood,   45 
Ind.    App.    1—298,    300,    70."),    707, 
720. 
Pittsl>iirj,'li.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wright,  80 

Ind.    182—154;-). 
Place  V.   Union   Express  Co.,  2  Hilt. 
(N.  Y.)    19,  27—38,  40,  350,  360, 
570. 
Plant  Investment  Co.  v.  Cook,  85  Fed. 

011—1007. 
Plantation  No.  4  v.  Hall,  61  Me.  517 

—81,  739. 
Planz    V.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    157 

Mass.  577—1058. 
Piatt    V.    Fortv-Second    St.,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  2  Hun  '(N.  Y.)    124—1013. 
Piatt  V.  Fortv-Second  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

4  T.  &  C.  *(N.  Y.)   406—1003. 
Piatt  V.  Hibbard,  7  Cow,  (N.  Y.)   497 

—80,  82,  83,  376. 
Piatt   V.    Lecocq,    158    Fed.    723—40, 

109,  116,  127,  128. 
Piatt  V.   Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   108 

N.  Y.  358—578. 
Piatt  V.  Wells,  26  How.  Pr.    (N.  Y.) 

442—206.  272. 
Piatt  V.  W^ells,  2  Rob.   (N.  Y.)    101— 

212. 
Platz  V.  City  of  Cohoes,  89  N.  Y.  219 

—1599. 
Pledgar  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   69 

Xeb.  456—992.  1426. 
Plefka    V.    Detroit    United    Ry.,    155 

Mich.  53—1093. 
Plopper  V,  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  13 

Hun   (N.  Y.)   625—1666. 
Plott  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Wis. 

511_1069,   1227,   1228,  12.^5. 
Plum  V.  Metropolitan  St.  Rv.  Co.,  91 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)  420— 1C20. 
Plummer  v.  Boston  Elev.  Ry.  Co.,  198 

Mass.  499—1612. 
Plummer  v.   Ossipee,   59   N.  H.   55 — 

1.552. 
Plutschow  V.  Metropolitan  W.   S.   E. 

R.  Co.,  155  111.  App.  589—1621. 
Podrat   v.   Narragansett   Pier   R.,   32 

R.  I.  25.')— 490.' 
Poland   V.    United    Traction    Co.,    107 
App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   561—1003. 


Polk  V.  Cliicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  94  U.  S. 

179—121. 
Pollard  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 

Hosw.    (N.   Y.)    437—1634. 
Pollard  V.  Vinton,   105  U.  S.  7—218, 

219,  229. 
Pollock  V.   Brooklyn,  etc.,   R.   Co.,    15 

N.  Y.   Supp.    189—1500. 
Pollock  V.   Cleveland   Ship   Bldg.   Co., 

56  Ohio  St.   055—1731,   1733. 
Pollow  V.  Texarkan  &   F.  S.   Ry.  Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  119  S.  W.  128— 

1604. 
Pomaski   v.   Grant,   119   Mich.   657^ 

1048. 
Pomeroy  v.  Ainsworth,  22  Bark.   (N. 

Y.)    118—451. 
Pomeroy  v.  Donaldson,  5  Mo.  36 — 59. 
Pompilj    v.   Manhattan   Delivery   Co., 

84  N.  Y.  Supp.  230—446. 
Pontifex  v.   Hartley,  62  N.  J.  Q.   B. 

196—759. 
Pool  V.  Cliicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Wis. 

227—991,   1044. 
Pool  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Wis. 

657—991,    1065. 
Poole  V.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Ga. 

320—1227. 
Poole  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  16  Ore. 

261—992. 
Pope  V.  Nickerson,  Fed  Cas.  No.  11,274 

(3  Story  465)— 451,  1993. 
Popham  V.  Barnard,  77  Mo.  App.  619 

479. 
Porch er  v.  North  Eastern  R.  Co.,   14 

Rich.  L.   (S.  C.)    181—27,  131,  324. 
Port    Blakely    Mill    Co.    v.    Sharkey, 

102  Fed.  259—603,  609. 
Poreous   v.   Adams  Express   Co.,    115 

Minn.  281—514. 
Porteous  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,   115 

Minn.  31—513. 
Porter  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  111. 

407—204,  380,   743. 
Porter    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    41 

Iowa,  358—186. 
Porter    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    20 

Iowa,  73—273. 
Porter    v.    Cliicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    80 

Mich.    156—1233,    1257. 
Porter  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  32  N.  J.  L.  201 

—1723,   1725. 
Porter  v.  Hildebrand,   14  Pa.  St.   129 

—  1297. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CCVU 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Porter  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  34 

Barb.   (N.  Y.)   353—1394. 
Porter  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59 

Hun   (N.  Y.)    177—1038. 
Porter  v.  Raleigh  &  G.  R.  Co.  (N.  C), 

43  S.  E.  547—117. 
Porter  v.  Southern  Express  Co.,  4  S. 

C.   135 — 458,  484. 
Porter  v.  Steamboat  New  England,  17 

Mo.  200—1255. 
Porterfield  v.  Humphreys,   8  Humpli. 

(Tenn.)    497—76,  927'. 
Portland  Flowring  Mills  Co.  v.  Brit- 
ish,  etc.,   Ins.   Co.,    130   Fed.   860— 
669. 
Portuchek    v.    Wabash    R.    Co.     (Mo. 

App.),  44  S.  W.  368—1221. 
Portur  V.  Currv,  7  La.  233—590. 
Posch  V.  Southern  El.  R.  Co.,  76  Mo. 

App.  601 — 1215. 
Post  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Neb. 

110—1029. 
Post  V.  Kock,  30  Fed.  208—327,  1231. 
Post  V.  West  Shore  R.  Co.,  123  N.  Y. 

580—1082. 
Posten  V.  Denver  Consol.  Tr.  Co.,   11 

Colo.  App.  187—1092. 
Posten    V.    Denver    Consol.    Tr.    Co. 
(Colo.  App.),  78  Pac.  1067—1681. 
Posten    V.    Denver    Consol.    Tramwav 
Co.,  3  St.  Ry  Rep.  37   (Colo.  App.") 
—1676. 
Potter  V.  Bunnell,  20  Ohio  St.  150— 

45. 
Potter  v.  Faulkner,  1  B.  &  S.  800— 

1066. 
Potter   V.   Metropolitan   St.   Ry.   Co., 

142  Mo.  App.  220—1482. 
Potter  Mfg.   Co.  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R. 
Co.,   4   Int.    Com.    Rep.   514— 1781, 
1794. 
Potts  V,  Chicago  City  Ry.  Co.,  33  Fed. 

Rep.  610—1081,   1494,   1507. 
Pottes  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  131 

Mass.  45.5 — 637,  641,  644. 
Potts  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Mo. 

App.  394 — 430,  456,  879,  908. 
Poucher  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  49 
N.  Y.  26.3 — 460,  985,  1036,  1449, 
1462,  1467. 
Poughkeepsie  Iron  Co.  v.  New  York 
Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co..  3  Int.  Com.  R. 
248—1761,   1790,   1798. 


Poulin  v.  Broadway,  etc..  Ry.  Co.,  61 

X.  Y.   621—1239",   1243,   1645. 
Poulin   v.    Canadian   Pac.    R.   Co.,    52 

Fp(1.  197—1415. 

Poulson   y.   Nassau   Elec.    R.   Co.,    IS 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    221—118,   1505. 

Poulson    y.   Nassau    Elect.    R.    Co.,   7 

Am.   Electl.   Cas.   675—1116,    1582. 

Poulton  v.  London  &  S.  W.  R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  2  Q.  B.  534—1184. 
Pounder  v.  North  Eastern   R.   Co.,    1 

Q.   B.  385—1190. 
Powell  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

(Miss.),  8  So.  738—1059. 
Powell  y.   Hudson   Valley   R.   Co.,   8S 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)    1.3.3—1487. 
Powell    V.   Hudson   Valley    R.    Co.,   2 

St.  Rv.  Rep.  800—1108. 
Powell  V.  Mills,  37  Miss.  691 — 60. 
Powell  V.  Mills,  30  Miss.  231—27,  59, 

62,  84,   110. 
Powell  V.  Mvers,  26  Wend.    (N.  Y.). 
591 — 44,  61,  62,  75.   198,  234,  235. 
948,  1302,   1338,   1350,   1352. 
Powell  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  32  Pa. 
St.    414—458,    794,   820,    822,    851, 
897. 
Powell  V.   Philadelphia  &   R.   R.   Co., 

220  Pa.  638—1001. 
Powell  V.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25 

Ohio  St.  70—1025. 
Powell  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  229 

Mo.  246—956. 
Powelson    v.    Union    Tract.    Co.,    204 

Pa.  St.  474—1615. 
Powers  v.   Boston   &  M.   R.   Co.,   153 

Mass.   188—1058. 
Powers  V.  Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   130 

Iowa,  615—876. 
Powers  V.  Connecticut  Co.,  82  Conn. 

665—1001. 
Powers  V.  Davenport,  7  Blackf.  (Ind.) 

497—71,  72,   134. 
Powers  V.   Sixty  Tons  of  Marble,  21 

La.  Ann.  402 — 641. 
Powers  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Wells,  Fargo 

&  Co.,  93  Minn.  143 — 473. 
Powers  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Wells,  Fargo 
&   Co.    (Minn.),    100   N.   W.   735— 
572. 
Poythross   v.    Durham   &   S.   Ry.    Co., 

i48  N.  C.  .391-385,  391. 
Praogor   v.    Bristal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    24 
L.  T.  N.   S.   105—1233,   1242. 


t\-vin 


TAl'.I.K  Ol    CASKS. 
1  lie   iflfrnu'i's  are  to  the   ini<^3.) 


PnuruMHi  A  lias  To.  V.  I'liitcd  Stat.'s.  I'lirstlv   v.  Nintlicni   Imliaiia,  etc.,  U. 

204   FihJ.  7!IS— 70.   1V7!'.  r<i.,  Jti    111.  'id;") — MS,  lili). 

I'ratluT  V.   Kielimoiul  A    D.   K.   Co..  SH  riim-.'  v.  D;iiv.  r,  cti..  1!.  to.,  12  t  ol'J. 

tia.   427— 1:>42.  IU2— Ga7. 

I'ratt  V.  nivaiit.  20  \t.  ;{:$:$— 2(57.  i'rim-e   v.    Interimti(.iial,   ite..   K.   Co., 

Pratt    V.    (."•liieaKo,    ete..     H.    fo..     SS  <i4    Tex.     14l-!)r,7,    HSri,    t)87,    'JUO, 

.Minn.  4-).-)— 12(;s.  HI-"- 

Pratt   V.  (Jrand   'rninU    K.   To..  !•:,  U.  '"'"'i'''   v.   Oswego,   ele.,    K..   oO   N.    Y. 

S.  4:{— 242.  774. 


Pratt  V.  Ou'deiisimr-:.  ete..  K.  Co..  102 

•Mass.    .V)7— 1.V2.    7:?!).   7!i;{.   8.")!. 
Prav   V.  Oinalia   St.   l\v.  Co..  44   Nebr. 

I  (57— 121.-..  l(;:i!». 
Prendertrast    \.    New    Voik   Cent.,  ete.. 

U.  Co..  38  N.  V.  ().")2— l.")S7. 
Prenderville  v.  Coniv    Island  &    M.   H. 

Co..   731    Aim-.    I>iv.    (N.   V.)    30:5— 

P274. 
I'rentiee  v.   Deeker.  4!t    Harh.    (N.   Y.) 

21—411.  1454. 
Prescott.  ete..  R.  Co.  v.  .\teliison.  etc., 

K.  Co..  73  Fed.  438-182.',. 
President,    ete..    of    Porthiml    P>ank    v. 

Stiit)I)s.    (i    Mass.    422— ()71. 
Presslev    v.    Mobile,    ete.,    U.    Co..    1") 

Fed."l9{)— 11S4. 
Pre.ston  v.  Fin  ley.  72  Fed.  8.")()— 1732. 
Prcttvman  v.  Oreiron  K..  ete..   13  Ore. 

341—582. 
Previsieh    v.    Bntte    Electric    Ry.    Co. 

(Mont.).    131    Pac.   25— 1540'. 
Price  V.  Denver,  etc..  R.  Co..   12  Colo. 

402— 1;38.   782. 
Price  V.  Hartshorn.  44  X.  Y.  1)4—23, 

164. 
Price  V.  Metropolitan  St.  U\ .  Co..  220 

Mo.  43.'')- 14'.t(i. 


213—235. 
Iriiuc  V.   Hallway  Co.,  04  Te.\.   14()  — 

lnl7. 
Prior  V.  \N  ilson,  2  L.  T.  N.  S.  549— 

tilt). 
Pritcliard  v.  Norton.   lOG  U.  S.  124— 

-15ti. 
Pidctor  V.   Cincinnati,  etc.,   R.  Co.,   3 

Int.   Com.    Hq>.    131  —  1781. 
Proetor     &     (lamble    Co.    v.     United 

States   of    America,   225   U.    S.   282 

—  )S!t!t. 
Proctor     A-      (Iambic    Co.    v.     United 

States,    188   Fed.  221—1844. 
Projieller  Niagara  v.  Cordes,  21  How. 

(U.  S.)    2t)— 1451. 
Proprietors    Trent,    etc.,    Nav.    Co.    v. 

Wood.  2tJ  E.  C.  L.  479—307. 
Pro?-pi:ct    V.    Rhode    Island    Suburban 

i;v.  (  (>.,  28   R.   1.  307—1157. 
Prothero   v.   Citizens'  St.  R.   ('o..    134 

Ind.    431  —  1242. 
Proud    V.    Pliiladelphia.    etc..    R.    Co., 

ti4.   N.  .1.    Law   7(J2— 1110. 
Providence    Coal    Co.    v.    Providence, 

etc.,   R.   Co..   1    Int.   Com.   R.   363— 

1790. 
l^ruitt    v.    Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co..    02 

Mo.    .-.27—303,    372.    543,    541,    838, 

S-IO. 


'.'rice  V.   Oswe^ro.   etc..    It.   Co..   50   N.       piuitt  v.  San   Pedro,  etc..  R.  Co.,  101 

f'al.  29—1049. 
JMiekett    V.    Sontliern    R.    Co.,    9    Ca. 
Apj).   589—1410. 


Y.  213—211. 
Price    V.    Pennsvlvania    R.    Co..     113 
U.  S.   219— 1()49. 


Price    V.    Powell.    3    N.    Y.    322—244,  Pu.i.-ct  Sound  Electric  Rv.  v.  Fell,  181 

384.  Fed.  938—1084. 

Price    V.    St.    I.ouis.    etc.,    R.    Co.,    75  Pulliam  v.  I3urlin<,'ame,  81  Mo.  Ill — ■ 

Ark.   479-1140,    1195.  5.! I. 

Price    V.    St.    lx)uis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    72  Pullman  Co.  v.  (ireen.  128  Gra.   142 — 

Mo.  414 — 1508.   1677.  1294. 

Price  V.  Tlie   Iriel.    10   La.   Ann.  413  Pullman  0>.  v.  Linke.  203   Fed.   1017 

—576.   582.  —09. 

Prickett  v.  New  Orleans    \n(lior  Line.  Pullmian  Co.  v.  Vanderlioeven.  48  Te.v. 

13  Mo.  A])],.  43li— 99S.  Civ.   App.   414—1294. 

Piideaux    V.    .Mini-ral    Point.    43    Wis.  Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    v.    Ailams, 

513— 12(i9.   1545.  120    Ala.   581— (i5. 

Priest    V.    Hudson    River    R.    Co.,    40  Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    v.    Adams 

How.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)    456—1166.  (Ala. I,   24    So.   921—64. 


lAJBLJi  Of  L'ASE.S. 


CCIX 


(The  reiViences  are  to  the  pages.) 


V.    A rents 
\\'.    329— 

Balles.  80 

V.  Barker, 


Gardner, 

.   Gaylord, 

Hall.   10() 

Tex. 


Pullman    Palace    Car    Co. 

(Tex.   Civ.   App.),   06   8 

Uo. 
Pullman  Palate  Car  Co.  v 

Tex.  211—07. 
I'ullnian's   Palac-e   Car  Co. 

4  Colo.  344—9-1.5,   1142,  1703,  1706. 
Pul:iiiiUi    Palace    Car    Co.    v.    Bliihm, 

10!)   HI.  20-1704,   1705. 
Pullman  Palacf  Car  v.  Cain,  15  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  y03 — 67. 
Pullman   Palace  Car  Co.  v.   Fielding, 

62  111.  App.  .■)77 — 04.'). 
Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Galvin,  93 

Tenn.    .")3 — 64,    1377. 
Pullman    Pahict;  Car  Co. 

3    Penny    (  Pa.).   78 — 64 
Pullman   Palace   Car   Co. 

6  Ky.  L.  Rep.  279—64. 
Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  i 

Ga.  765—64. 
Pullman    Palace    Car    v.    Hatch, 

Civ.  App.).  70  .S.  W.  771—64. 
Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    v.    Hunter 

(Ky.),  54   S.  W.  84.5—64,  45. 
Pullman    Palace   Co.   v.   Lawrence    74 

Miss.    784 — 64. 
Pullman   Palace  Car  Co.   v.  Jjowe,  28 

Neb.  239—65.  66. 
I*ullman    Palace    Car    Co.    v.    Marsh 

(Ind.),  53  N.  E.  782—67. 
Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Matthews. 

74   Tex.   64.5 — 64,   66. 
Pullman   Pala^-e  Car  Co.  v.   Missouri 

Pac.   \l.  Co.,   115  U.  S.  587-729. 
Pullman    P:;lace    Car    Co.    v.    Nelson. 

22  Tex.  Civ.  App.  223-67. 
Pullman    Palace    Car    (  o.    v.    Pollock. 

69  Tex.    120—64,  66. 
Pullman   Palao"  Car   Co.   v.  Reed,   75 

111.   125—1720. 
Pul'man  Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Smith,  73 

III.   360-64. 
Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    v.    Tavlor, 

65  Tnd.   15.3—66. 
Pullman    Sontln-rn    Car   Co.   v.    Xolan 

(f;.  ('.),  22    Fed.  76—1857. 
Purcell  v.  Richmond,  etc..  R.  Co.,  108 

N.   C.   414—119,    342.    1143. 
Purc'll    v.   Southern    Exnross    Co.,    34 

(in.    315—418,    433,    556,    570. 
Purecll    V.    St.    Paul    City   R.    Co.,   48 

Minn.    134—1213. 
Pnrdv  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 
N.  V.  :»53— 1104. 


Puring-ton-Kiniball   Brick  Co.  v.   Eck- 

man,    102    111.   App.   183 — 1641. 
Puritan    Coal    Min.    Co.    v.    Ptnnsvl- 

vania    R.    Co..    237    Pa.    420—711, 

720,  1802,  1878. 
Purple  v.  Lnion  Pac.  R.  Co.,  114  Fed. 

123—6,  1017,  1019.  1055,  1460. 
Purvis  V.  Bull'alo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  219  Pa. 

195—1579. 
Putnam  v.  Broadway,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 

X.  Y.   108—1068,   1138,   1140,   1142, 

1186,   1194,   1407. 
Pyle  V.  Ea&t  Tennessee,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

1   Int.   Com.   Rep.   767—1786. 
Pym  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  2  F. 

&   F.   619—1083,    1120,   1501. 
Pyne   v.    Broadwav.    etc.,    R.    Co.,    19 

N.   Y.   Supp.  217—1553. 


Quackenbush  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

73  Iowa,  458 — 1262,  1626. 
Quaife    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co..    4S 

Wis.  513—1716. 
Quanah,  etc.,   Ry.   Co.   v.   Drummond 

(Te.x.  Civ.  App.).  147  S.  W.  728— 

690,  713. 
Quanah,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v.    Gallowav 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  140  S.  W.  308— 

869. 
Quantz  v.   Southern  Ry.   Co.,    137   N. 

C.   136—1011. 
Quarricr   v.    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

20  W.  Va.  424—186,  583. 
CJuigley   v.    Central    Pac.    R.    Co.,    1 1 

Nev.    350—1149,    1702,   1716,    1720, 

1726. 
Quigley   v.   Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    (Tex. 

Civ.   App.).    142    S.   W.    03.3—1425. 
Quimbv  v.  Bee  Bldg.  Co.,  87  Neb.  193 

—1659. 
Quimby    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    150 

.Mass.    36.5— 431,    1331.    13.33,    14.50, 

1454,   1455,   1461,   1464. 
Qniiiihv  V.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  83  Neb. 

777—832 
Quimbv   v.  VandeH)ilt,   17  N.   Y.   306 

—313,   1345,   1302.   15.58. 
Quin  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  7  St  Rep. 

(N.  Y.)   252—1679. 
Quincv,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wellhnr>ner    72 

111. *60— 1511. 
Qiiinlan  v.  Sixth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  4  Tir.'v 

'V     y.\.    49«-14ni. 


ccx 


lAiU.l':  OF  CAS  lis. 
("llio    ri-firinios   :in«   to   tlio    pages.) 


Quiun  V.   I.OIK4  l..l:uul  U.  Co.,  :n   llvin 

uN.    v.),   3;n— 171;'),    171i). 
Quinu    V.    AlcliointliUMi    St.    Ky.    Co., 

U*1S  Mo.  540 — lli'J.i. 
Quiiin  V.   Phihiilolplua   U.    T.  Co.,  2-4 

I'll.  1G2— 102-. 
Quiiin    V.    Sliam  kin   &   M.   C.    El.    R. 

Co.,  7  Pa.  SiijuM.  Ct.  ID— loS3. 
Quiiiii   V.    Soutl\    Caroliiui   K.   Co.,   29 

S.  C.  381  —  1G5G,  17-!lJ. 
Quimi    Coal    Co.    v.    Hocking    Valley 

Kv.,  32  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  K.  700—704, 

7iy. 


B. 

Eaben    v.    Central    Iowa    R.    Co.,    74 

Iowa,   732—1245,   1598,  1G76,  1679. 

Rabon    v.    Central    Iowa    R.    Co.,    73 

Iowa,  579—1227,  1245,  1246. 
Riulel  &  Co.  V.  Borches,   147  Ky.  506 

1101. 
Radley  v.  Columhia  Southern  Ry.  Co., 

44   Or.   332—1042. 
Rae  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  14  Fed. 

401—122. 
Ragan  v.  Aiken,  9  Loa   (Tenn.),  609 

—162. 
Rager  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  229  Pa. 

335 — 1573. 
Ragsdale    v.    Southern    Ry    Co.,    119 

Ga.  027—878. 
Rjihwav   Vallev   R.   Co.   v.   Delaware, 
etc.R.  Co.,' 14  I.  C.  C.  Rep.  191— 
1SC8. 
Railroad   v.   Adams    (Va.),   18   S.   E. 

675—627. 
Railroad  v.  Aller,  56  Ohio  St.  754— 

1601,  1602. 
Railroad  v.  Bover,  97  Pa.  91—1268. 
Railroad  v.  Butler,  57  Pa.  335—1033. 
Railroad    v.    ConncU,    112    111.   295— 

1415. 
Railroad  v.  Cook,  145  111.  551—1646. 
Railroad   v.   Crudup,   63   Miss.   291 — 

1033. 
Railroad  v.  Fuller,  17  Wall.   (U.  S.) 

560-1752. 
Railroad    v.    Gants,    38    Kan.    618— 

1017,  1415. 
Railroad  v.  Griffin,  68  lH,  499—1415. 
Railroad  v.  Hurst,  11  Heisk   (Tenn.), 
025—325. 


Kailnuul    v.    lluscn,    96    U.    S.    405— 

1747.   1748. 
Kail  road  v.  Akt^indh'Ss,  33  Kan.  30G 

—  1015. 
Railroad    v.    Mouihani,   91     Tonn.    428 

—988. 
Railroad   v.   Mitchell,   98   Tenn.    31  — 

1240. 
Railroad  v.  Myers,  87  Fed.  149—1714. 
Railroad   v.   Richmond,    19   Wall.    (U. 

S.)    584—1750. 
Railroad  v.  Stanley,  89  Tex.  42—881. 
Railroad   v.    Stein    (Ind.),   31    N.    E. 

180—1564. 
Railroad  v.  Sullivan,  120  Fed.  799— 

1033. 
Railroad   v.   Trautwein,   52   N.   J.   L. 

169—1033. 
Railroad  v.  Walrath,  38  Ohio  St.  461 

—06. 
Railroad     Commission    v.    Savannah, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Int.  Com.  Rep.  1784. 
Railroad  Corn'r."?  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  63  Me.  269—121,  123,  1136. 
Railway  Co.  v.  Atkins,  40  Ark.  423— 

1015. 
Railway  Co.  v.  Gantz,  38  Kan.  608 — 

1017,'  1415. 
Railway   Co.   v.   McCleav«    (Ky.),   38 

S.  W.   1055—1646. 
Railway  Co.  v.  McGown,  65  Tex.  640 

1033. 
Railway  Co.  v.  Nix,  68  Ga.  572—1397. 
Railway  Co.  v.  Rude,  62  111.  App.  550 

—1646. 
Railway   Co.  v.   Soott,  86  Va.  902— 

1646. 
Railway   Co.  v.  Spaher,   7   Ind.   App. 

23—1615. 
Railway  Co.  v.  Stevens,  95  U.  S.  655 

—1033. 
Railway  Co.  v.  Valleley,  32  Ohio  St. 

345—1194,   1258,   1401,   1407. 
Railway  Co.  v.  Williams,  140  111.  276 

—1615. 
Railway  Co.  v.  Wright,  176  U.  S.  498 

—470. 
Rainey   v.   Grand   Trunk    Ry.   Co.   of 

Canada,  84  Vt.  521—1523. 
R.  A.   Lee  v.   St.  I^uis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

136  N.  C.  53.3—598. 
Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lowe,  101  Ga. 

320—218,  226. 
Ralli  V.  New  York  &  T.  S.  S.  Co.,  154 
Fed.  280—2003. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CCXl 


(The  references   are   to  the   pages.) 


Earning  v.  Metropolitan   St.  Ry.   Ck)., 

157  Mo.  477—1020,   1G40. 
Ramm  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94 

Iowa,  296—1042. 
Ramsav   v.   Pottstown   &   A.   St.   Ry. 

Co.,  ^35    Pa,    Super.    Ct.   598—1653. 
Ramsden  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   104 

.uass.   117—1148. 
Ranchau   v.   Rutland   R.   Co.,   71   Vt. 

142—1340. 
Rand  v.  ilerchants'  Dispatch  Transp. 

Co.,  59  N.  H.  363—1450. 
Randall  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109 

U.  S.  478—1114. 
Randall    v.    tirodhead,    60    App.    Div. 

(N.  Y.)    567-546. 
Randall  v.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   113 

Mich.  1151—1145. 
Randall  v.  Xew  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

45  La.  Ann.  778—1026,   1458. 
Randall  v.  Riclimond  &  D.  R.  Co.,  108 

N.  C.  612—131,  163. 
Randall   v.   South   Frankford  R.   Co., 

139  Pa.  St.  464—1118,  1198. 
Randall  v.  Sterling,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  158 

111.  App.  56—1537. 
Randell  v.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   102 

Mo.    App.    342—1397,    1426,    1434. 
Randolph   v.   Hannibal,    etc.,   R.    Co., 

18  Mo.  App.  609—1150,  1713,  1718, 

1725. 
Randolph  v.  Quincv,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129 

Mo.  App.   1—1415. 
Rangenier    v.    Seattle    Elec.    Co.,    52 

Wash.  401—1597. 
Rankin  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  Packet  Co., 

9    Hcisk.     (Tenn.),    564—26,    198, 

250.  636,  649,  650. 
Rankin  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  55  Mo.  167— 

119,  342,  381,  598,  604. 
Ransom  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 

N.  Y.  41.5—1703,   1715. 
Ransomc  v.  Eastern  Counties  R.  Co., 

87  E.  C.  L.  437—162. 
Papheal   Pickford,   5   M.   &   G.   558— 

344. 
Rappaport    v.    White's    Express    Co., 

131  N.  Y.  Supp.  131—422,  511. 
Ratlibone  v.  Neal,  4   La.  Ann.  653 — 

582. 
Ratlibone  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  140  N.  Y.  48—462,  470.  498. 
Rathbone  v.  Oregon  R.  Co.    (Or.),  66 

Pac.  909 — 1044. 
Rattibun    V.    Citizens    Steamboat    Co., 

76  N.  Y.  376—264. 


Ratican    v.    Terminal    R.    Ass'n,    114 

Fed.  666—160. 
Ratliff    V.    Quincv.    etc.,    R.    Co.,    118 

Mo.  App.  644—598,  841,  850,  902. 
Rattan    v.    Central    Electric   Ry.    Co., 

120  Mo.  App.  270—1493. 
Ratterel  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  197—997,  1232. 
Ratzer  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64 

Minn.  245—221,  223. 
Raw   v.    Bosworth,    179    U.    S.   443 — 

123. 
Rawitsky   v.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

40  La.  Ann.  47—1025. 
Rawlings  v.   Wabash  R.   Co.,  97  Mo. 

App.  515—996,  1710,  1718. 
Raworth  v.   Northern  Pac.   R.   Co.,  3 

Int.    Com.    Rep.    857—1794,     1798, 

1828. 
Rawson   v.   Holland,   59   N.   Y.   611— 

372.   384,   453,   461,   730,   735,   738, 

1367. 
Rawson    v.    Pennsylvania   R.    Co.,    48 

N.    Y.    212—428,    447,    1330,    1332, 

1454. 
Rawson  v.  Pennsvlvania  R.  Co.,  2  Abb. 

Prac.  (N.  S.)  220—1375,  1451. 
Ray  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  147  Mo. 

App.  332—1526. 
Ray   V.   Cortland   &   Horner   Traction 

Co.,    19   App.   Div.    (N.   Y.)    530— 

1435. 
Rav  V.  Cortland,  etc..  Traction  Co.,  56 

N.  Y.  Supp.  521—1416. 
Ray  V.  United  Tract.  Co.,  3   St.  Ry. 

Rep.  715—1168. 
Raymond  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 

65  Iowa,  152— 12i2. 
Ravmond  v.   Chicaso,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   1 

Int.  Com.  Rpp.  627—1794. 
Ravmond  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  120 

ill.  App.  240—1573. 
Ravmond  v.  Tyson,   17  How.    (U.  S.) 

53—648. 
Rea  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Tex.), 

73   S.  W.  55.5—1122. 
Read  v.  Spaulding,  30  N.  Y.  630—27, 

83,   30S,  372. 
Read  v.  Spaulding.  5  Bosw.    (N.  Y. ) 

39.5—38,  40,  4L  53. 
Read  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Mo. 

199—343,   369.  457,  576,   578. 
Readhead    v.    Midland    R.   Co.,   L.   R. 

2  p.  B.  412—1118. 
Reading  v.  Chioafro,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   165 

Mo.  App.  123—799. 


<.H'Ml 


KiiiiliiijT  I  itv    I'asv.    |{.   lo 

(Ta.),  4  Atl.  a.iO— ir>l-2. 
Ivi'iulinjjjton  v.  rhiladflplua  Tract.  Co., 

i;i2   I'u.  St.   154    -1(117. 
Roagiin  V.   FaiTiirr'^   1..   &   T.   Co.,    1;)4 

U.  S.  162—1782. 
Ui-a!  1-Mati-  Trust  &  liis.  Co.  v.  (Iwyn, 

ii;j  Va.  :?;?7— ni'.M). 

Up    Alleu'od    Unlawful     Katos.    7     Int. 

Com.   Rep.  33— lS(i.'.. 
Kc  Annajxilis,  ftc.  R.  Co.,  1   Int.  Com. 

Rpp.   .•)1.") — 177r>. 
Ri-ardi'n  v.  St.  Louis  \   S.   F.  Hy.  Co., 

215   Mo.    10.')— nil.    1071. 
Rpary   v.   Louisvilio.   etc..   R.   Co..   40 

La".  Ann.  32— L>S.  !1S8. 
Kebcr    v.    Bond.    3S    Fed.    822—1211. 

12ii4. 
Re  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co..  3  Int.  Cora.  C. 

Rep.  717—1854. 
Re    Charge    to    Grand    Jury.    (56    Fed. 

140— ISOO. 
Reddon  v.  Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  5  Utah, 

355—1544. 
Redfield  v.  Oakland  Consol.  St.  R.  Co., 

110  Cal.  277—1216. 
Redington   v.    Harrisburg   Tract.   Co., 

210    Pa.    St.   648—1008. 
Redmon    v.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    90 

Mo.  App.  68—288,  770. 
Redmond  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46 

N.  Y.  578—259. 
Redmond  v.  Liverpool,  etc..  S.  S.  Co., 

56  Barb.    (N.  Y.)    320—257. 
Redmond  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  N. 

Y.  Supp.  330—1675. 
Redner  v.  Lehigh,  etc..  R.  Co..  73  Hun 

(N.  Y.),   562—1231. 
Redpath   v.   Western    Union   Tel.    Co., 

112  Mass.  71—92. 
Red   River,  etc..   R.   Co.  v.   Easton   & 

Knox,  39  Tex.  Cic.  App.  579—599, 

789. 
Red  Rock  Fuel  Co.  v.  Baltimore  &  O. 

R.    Co.,    11    Int.    Com.    Rep.    438— 

1870. 
Rerd     V.     Axtell,    84    Va.    231— 123o, 

1602. 
Reed  v.  Duluth.  etc..  R.  Co.,  100  Mich. 

507—1233,   1257. 
Reed  v.  Fargo,  7  N.  Y.   Supp.   185— 

426.  434. 
Reed  v.  Muscogee  R.  Co..  48  Ga.  102 

—1600. 
Reed  v.  Now  York   Cent.   R.   Co.,  45 

N.  Y.  574—1554.   1556. 


r.M'.l.i;  Ol'  CASKS. 
('I'hc    rct'cii'iu'cs    are    to    the    i)ages.) 
KcUcrt 


Kc.d    v.    New    York    Cciil.   R.   Co.,  66 

Uarb.    (N.  V.)    19.3—1083. 
Weed    V.    New    York,   etc.,    U.    Co.,    110 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   709—1171. 
Reed    V.    rhihulciphiu.   etc..   R.   Co.,   3 

Iloust.    (D.l.)     17t>— 132.    140,    192, 

555. 
Reed   v.    Rome,   etc..    11.    Co.,   4S    llun 

(N.  Y.),  231—59.-!. 
Reed  v.  United  States  K\])ress  Co.,  48 

N.  Y.  4(12— 7:58.  765. 
Reed    v.    \\'ilmington    Steamboat    Co., 

1   Marv.    (Del.  Sui)er.)    193—77. 
Reeder  v.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  14  Cal, 

App.  790—384,  506. 
Reel    V.    Adams    Express   Co.,   27    Pa. 

Super.  Cti.  77 — 535. 
Reem    v.     St.   Paul    City   R.    Co.,    77 

Minn.     503.     SO    N.    W.    638—1217, 

1563. 
Reems  v.  New   Orleans  G.  N.  E.  Co., 

126  La.  511—1504. 
Reeves  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  24  S.  D. 

84—1490. 
Reeves  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  514—479. 
Re  Export  &   D.   Rates,   8   Int.   Com. 

Rep.  214—1795. 
Re    Express   (^ompanies.    1    Int.    Com. 

Rep.  677—1777,  1850. 
Re     Express     Companies,    1    I.    C.   C. 

Rep.  349—1933. 
R.  E.  Funsten  Dried  Fruit  &  Nut  Co. 

V.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  163  Mo.  App. 

426—337. 
Recan  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  61   N. 

II.  579—344.  364,  371. 
Regonshiirg    v.    Nassau    Elec.    R.    Co., 

58    App.    Div.    (N.    Y.)    566—1217, 

1218. 
Regner  v.  Glens  Falls,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

Hun     (N.     Y.).     202—1273,     1403. 

1593. 
Reichla  v.   Gruenfelder,   52  Mo.   App. 

4.3—1517. 
Reich  man  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  1  N. 

Y.  Supp.  836—1.553. 
Reid    v.    Colorado,    187    U.    S.    137— 

1894. 
Reid  V.   Southern  Ry.  Co..  153  N.  C. 

490—117.   1841.  1910. 
Reid  V.  United  States  Express  Co..  48 

N.  Y.  470—53. 
Reid    V.    Yazoo   &   M.   V.    R.    Co.,   94 

Miss.  639—1571,  1700. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CCXlll 


(The   references   are   to   the   pages. 


Reid   &    Beam   v.    Southern    Ry.    Co.. 

149  N.  C.  423—127. 
Reidv  V.   Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  27 

Mfsc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    527 — 1614. 
Reineman    v.    Covington,   etc.,   R.   Co.. 

51  Iowa,  338—642. 
Re  Inmatt's  of  National  Homes.  1  Int. 

Com.  Rop.  75-1854. 
Reiaenleiter  v.  United  Rys.  Co.  of  St. 

Louis.  155  :\Io.  App.  89—1523. 
Reiser    v.    Metropolitan    Express    Co., 

91    N.  Y.   Supp.    170—569. 
Reiss  V.  Texas  &  P.  Rt.  Co..  98  Fed. 

533—240.  764. 
Reiss     V.     Wilmington    City    Ry.    Co. 

(Del.    Super.).    67    Atl.    153—1536. 

1667. 
Re    Joint    Water,   etc.,   Lines.   2    Int. 

Com.  R.  486—1776. 
Relf  V.  Rapp.  3  W.  &  S.    (Pa.)    21— 

.523,  526.  527. 
Rend  v.   Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co..   2   Int. 

Com.  R.  313—1790. 
Renneker  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co..  20 

S.  C.  219—1214.  1601. 
Rennie  v.  Northern  R.   Co..  27   U.  C. 

C.  P.  15.3—263.  744. 
Renaud  v.  Now  York.  etc..  R.  Co..  210 

Mass.     55.3—455.    999.    1000.    1072, 

1137.  1574.  1649. 
Re    Order    of- Railway   Conductors.    1 

Int.  Com.  Rep.   18—1854. 
'Re  Passenger  Traffic.  2  Int.  Com.  Rep. 

445_17S1.  I7n2.  1832. 
Re  Passenger  Tariffs,  etc..  2  Int.  Com. 

Rep.  340—1792.  1833. 
Re  Relative  Tank.  etc..  Rates  on  Oil, 

2  Int.  Com.  R.  24.5—1788. 
Re    fJelisious    Teachers.    1    Int.   Com. 

Rep.  21—1854. 
Re    Southern    R..    etc..    Assoc..    1    Int. 

Com.  Rep.  278-1828.  1829. 
Re  Tariff  of  Columhus.  etc..  R.  Co.,  2 

Int.  Com.  Rep.  11-18.32. 
Re  Tariff  of  Transcontinental  Lines.  2 

Int.  Com.  Rep.  20.3—1794.  1833. 
Re  Transportation  of  Immigrants.    10 

Int.  Com.  Rep.   1.3—1851. 
R'-ubens    v.    Lndcrate    Hill    Steamship 

Co..  20  N.  Y.  Snpp.  481-568. 
Re  rndfrliilling.  1   Int.  Com.  Rep.  813 

—  1784.   1791. 
Rcvnolds  V.   Boston,   do  .  TT.   Co..    121 

Mass.   291—735.   736.   774. 
P.evnolds  V.  rJreat   NortJicrn    Rv.   Co., 

40  Wash.  163—849.  875. 


Revnolds  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  58  N.  Y.  248-1516,  1587. 
Reynolds  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  3  N.  Y^  Supp.  331—207. 
Revnolds   v.   Railroad   Co..   43   N.   H. 

5S6— 499. 
Revnolds   v.   Richmond   &   M.   R.    Co.. 

92  Va.  400— 9S3,   1215. 
Revnolds   v.    Seaboard  Air   Line   Rv., 

81   S.  C.  38.3—684. 
Revnolds  v.   St.  Louis   S.  W.  R.   Co.. 

i62  Mo.  App.  618—1001. 
Revnolds  v.  St.  Louis  Transit  Co.,  189 

Mo.  408—992. 
Reynolds  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  La 

Ann.  697—1263. 
Rhea  v.  Minneapolis  St.  Rv.  Co.,  Ill 

Minn.  271—1482. 
Rhoads  v.   Cornwall   &  L.  R.   Co.,  48 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  310—974,  978,  1001. 
R.  H.  Oliver  &  Son  v.  Chicago,  R.  I. 

&  P.  Rv.  Co.,  89  Ark.  466—135. 
Rhodes  v.'  Iowa,  170  U.  S.  412—1758. 
Rhodes   v.   Louisville,   etc..   R.   Co.,   9 

Bush     (Ky.),     688 — 419,   793,   823, 

896. 
Rhodes  v.   Northern   Pac.   R.   Co.,   34 

Minn.  87—148. 
Rice  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Int. 

Com.  Rep.  26.3—1829. 
Rice  v.  Baxendale,  7  H.  &  N.  96—599. 
Rice  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.,  98  Mass. 

212—206,  380,  407. 
Rice    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    Rv.    Co.,    153 

Mo.  App.  35,  131  S.  W.'  374—1098. 

1481,  1498. 
Rice  V.  Cincinnati,  etc..  R.  Co.,  3  Int. 

Com.   Rep.   841  —  1791,    1826. 
Rice  V.  Hart,  118  Mas.s.  201—202.  380. 

390. 
Rice  V.  Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.,  22   111. 

.\pp.   643—1306. 
Rice   V.    Indianapolis,   etc..   R.    Co.,    3 

Mo.    App.    27—523,   525,   569.   582. 

611,  779. 
Rice   V.  Kansas   Pac.   R.    Co.,   63    Mo. 

314 — 457.  481,  483.  880. 
Rice  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   1   Int 

Com.  R.  722—1790. 
Rice    V.     Ontario   Steamboat    Co.,   56 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    384—581,  586.  590. 

1992. 
Rice  v.   Wabash   R.  Co.    (Mo.   App  ) 

80  S.  W.  976—890. 
Rice   V.    Western    New   York,   etc,    R. 


OCXIV 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 

(  1  lio    ii'fortiKtb   aro    to   tlio    pages.) 


('o.,    3    Int.    Com.    Uep-    U>-— 1TH7, 

17S8,  17ilO.  1791. 
Rit'e   V.    Western    New    York,   ete.,   R. 

Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  Kep.  li'.tS— 1781. 
Rich    V.    Lambert.    12    How.    (U.    S.) 

352 — o.")!,  5r)3. 
Rieliards  v.  Fuqua.  28  Miss.  703—59. 
Rieliarils   v.   Gilbert,   5    Day    (Conn.), 

Riehards  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  C. 

B.  S3it— 234.  235. 
Richards   v.    Umdon.    etc.,   R.   Co.,   18 

L.  J.  C.  P.  251—42,   197. 
Richards   v.   London,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  62 

E.  C.  L.  839—1300. 
Richards   v.   Michigan   Southern,  etc., 

R.  Co..  20  111.  404—380. 
Richards  v.  Pitts  Agricultural  Works, 

37  Hun   (N.  Y.).  1—276.  285. 
Richards    v.    Wcstcott,    2    Bosw.     (N. 

Y.)    589—40,  72,   112. 
Richardson   v.   Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co., 
19    Ont.    Rep.    369-380,    393,    398, 
399.  744. 
Richardson    v.   Chicago,   etc..   R.   Co., 

61  Wis.  596—148,  353,  1400. 
Richardson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 

Mo.  App.  Rep.  401-484. 
Richardson  v.  Goddard.  23  How.    (U. 

S.)    28—219,  249,  257. 
Richardson  v.  Goss,  3  B.  &  P.  119— 

256. 
Richardson  v.  Great  Eastern  R.  Co., 
1  C.  P.  Div.  342—1106.  1116,  1118. 
Richardson  v.  Metropolitan  R.  Co.,  37 

L.  J.  C.  P.  300—1632. 
Richardson    v.    Nathan,    167    Pa.    St. 

513—232. 
Richardson  v.  North  Eastern  R.  Co., 
L.  R.  7   C.  P.  75,  20  W.  R.  461— 
99,  926. 
Richardson  v.  The  Charles  P.  Chou- 
teau. 37   Fed.  532—745. 
Richardson   v.   The  Walker,   30   Fed. 

261—738. 
Richardson  v.  Woolverton,  117  N.  Y. 

Supp.  908—113,  1335. 
Rickerson   Roller   Mill   Co.   v.    Grand 
Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  67  Mich.  110— 
742. 
Richer   v.    Fargo,    77    App.    Div.    (N. 

Y.)    550—181. 
Richev  &  Gilbert  Co.  v.  Northern  Pac. 
Rv.'  Co.,    110  Minn.   347—141,   610. 


Hichmoiid  V.  Bronson,  5  Den.   (N.  Y.) 

r,-,_;-,s4.    585.    587. 
Kiilimond    v.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co., 

U;2  Mo.  App.  422—1161. 
Ricliitioiid  V.  guincy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 

Mo.   App.   104—1677. 
Kicliinoiid    V.    Railway    Co.,   87    Mich. 

374—1268. 
Richmond    v.    Soutlicrn    Pac.    R.    Co. 

(Or.),    67    Pac.    947— 14.'j8. 
Richmond   &   R.   R.   Co.   v.   Scott,   88 

Va.  958—1655. 
Richmond    Citv    R.    Co.   v.    Scott,   86 

Va.  902—1098.   1214. 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Benson,  86 

Ga.   203—344,   372,  559,   592. 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burnsed,  70 

Miss.  437—1038. 
Kiclimond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Greenwood, 

119    Ala.   501—1723. 
Richmond,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Jefferson, 

89  Ga.  5.54—1189,  1713. 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  31 

Gratt.    (Va.)    20—1678. 
Richmond,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Payne,   86 

Va.  481—430,  494,  496,  1459. 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shomo,  90 

Ga.  496—766. 
Richmond,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Smith,  92 

Ala.  237—1673. 
Richmond,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Trousdale, 
99    Ala.    389—570,    606,    816,    821, 
838,  905. 
Richmond,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Vance,  93 

Ala.  144—1554,  1723,  1724. 
Richmond,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   White,   88 
Ga.   805—309,   338,   395,   398,   574, 
576,  577. 
Richmond  R.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bowles, 

92  Va.  738—945. 
Riclimond  St.  &  I.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Beverly, 

43  Ind.  App.  10.5—1570,  1654. 
Riclimond  Tract.  Co.  v.  Williams,  102 

Va.  253—1214,  1680. 
Rick   V.   Wells   Fargo   Co.,   39    Utah, 

130—825. 
Rickerson   Roller   Mill   Co.   v.   Grand 
Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Mich,   110 
—739. 
Ricketts   v.   Birmingham   St.   R.   Co^ 

85  Ala.  600—1678. 
Ricketts  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69 
N.  Y.  637—768,  770. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CCXV 


(The  references   are   to   the   pages.) 


Ricketta  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 

Barb.    (N.   Y.)     18—765. 
Ricketts  v.   Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

33  W.  Va.  433—1150.  1725. 
Ricks  V.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  118  Ga. 

259—1613. 
Riddle   v.    Baltimore,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    1 

Int.  Com.  Rep.  778—1796. 
Riddle   V.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    1 

Ind.  Com.  Rep.  787—1782.   1799. 
Riddle,  Dean  &  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  1  Int.  Cora.  R.  594.  604—15 
Ridenhour  v.  Kansas  Citv  C.  R.  Co., 

102     Mo.     283—1219,     1249,     1591, 

1587. 
Rider  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Mo. 

App.  529—1299,  1301,  1349. 
Ridlesbarger  v.   Hartford  Ins.  Co.,  7 

Wall.   (U.  S.)   386—478. 
Riggins    V.    Missouri    River,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  73  Mo.  598—146. 
Riland  v.  Hirshler,  7  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 

384—102. 
Riley  v.  Chicago  City  Ry.  Co.,  189  111. 

384—1414. 
Rilev  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Neb. 

74*8— 1039. 
Riley  v.   Cincinnati   Traction   Co.,  28 

Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  Rep.  626—1687. 
Rilev  V.  Home,  5  Bing.  217—28,  29, 

135,  571. 
Riley  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  142 

Ky.  67—706. 
Riley  v.  New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   34 

Hun   (N.  Y.)   97—755. 
Riley  v.   Rhode  Island  Co.,   29   R.   I. 

143 — 1089.  1668. 
Riley  v.  Vallejo  Ferry  Co.,   173  Fed. 

331—978. 
Rind  V.   Stake,  28   Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.) 

177—569. 
Ringgold  v.  Haven,   1   Cal.   108—573, 

,'iS2,  596. 
Rintoul   V.   New  York   Cent.,   etc.,   R. 

Co..  17  Fed.  90.5 — 454,  .547,  572. 
Rio  Grande  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Ruben- 

stcin,  5  Colo.  App.  121 — 1727. 
Ripley  v.  New  Jersey  R.  etc.,  Co.,  31 

N.  J.  L.  388 — 999. 
Rist   V.   Pliiladelphia   R.   T.   Co.,   236 

Pa.  218—1540. 
RiverH  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  80  N. 

J.  Law,  217—1109. 
Riverside     Miil.i    v.     Atlantic     Coast 


Line   R.   Co.,    168   Fed.   987,   990— 

1908,  1909,  1911,  1912. 
Rixford  v.  Smith,  52  N.  H.  355—33, 

557,  822,  824. 
Roach    V.    Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co.,    1 

Manitoba  158 — 750. 
Roadbridge  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

105  Pa.  St.  460—1122. 
Roanoke  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sterrett,  111 

Va.  293—1504,  1537. 
Roanoke  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sterrett,  108 

Va.  533—1480. 
Roark  v.   Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.,    163 

Mo.  App.  705—1110. 
Robb   V.   Pittsburgh,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    14 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  ^282— 1419. 
Robbins  v.  Chicago  &  A.  Ry.  Co.,  132 

Mo.  App.  306—626,  674. 
Robbins    v.     Shelby     Countv     Taxing 

Dist.,  120  U.  S.  489—1742,  1747. 
Roberson  v.  Greenleaf  .Johnson  Lum- 
ber Co.,  154  N.  C.  328-1063. 
Robert  v.   Chicago  &  A.   R.  Co.,    148 

Mo.  App.  96—9.52,  1291,  1352. 
Robert  C.  White  Live  Stock  Com.  Co. 

V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Mo.  App. 

330—174,  215,  284,  749,  907. 
Roberts  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

1.55  N.  C.  79—979,  1568. 
Roberts  v.  Chittenden,  88  N.  Y.  33— 

569. 
Roberts  v.  Georgia  S.  &   F.  Ry.  Co., 

10  Ga.  App.  100—883,  900. 
Roberts  v.  Johnson,   58  N.  Y.   613— 

1236,  1487. 
Roberts  v.  Koehler,  30  Fed.  94r— 1014, 

1304,  1343. 
Roberts  v.   Rilcv,   15  La.  Ann.   103 — 

427,  455,  14.54. 
Roberts   v.    Sierra    Rv.    Co.,    14    Cal. 

App.  180—1481,  1631. 
Roberts  v.  Soutliern  Pac.  Co.,  166  Mo. 

App.  639—968. 
Roberts  v.  Stuvveaant  Safe  Dcp.  Co., 

123  N.  Y.  57—328. 
Roberts  v.  Turner,  12  Johns   (N.  Y.) 

232—80,  81,  82. 
Roberts   v.    Wabash    R.    Co.,    153   Mo. 

App.  638—1174,  1605. 
Robertson  v.  Kennedy,  2  Dana   (Ky.) 

430—20,  26,  62.  72,  100. 
Robertson  v.  National  Steamship  Co., 

1  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   61—448. 


CCXVl 


TAULL  Ul-'  CASKS. 


(Tlip   reforoiKM's   are   to   tlie   pages.) 


Robertson  v.  National  Sdamship  Co., 

r.O  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.   \:i'2     :V.H\. 
Kolu'itsoii  V.  Nntioiiul  Stoiun.ship  C'o.. 

4'2  St.  Rop.    (N.  V.^   (i')4  -r)!»2.  rj!)."!. 
Robertson  v.  N«'\v   ^■o^k.  etc..   R.  Co.. 

22  Barb.    (N.  Y.)   !)1  — 1042. 
Roltortson  v.  Old  Colony   K.  Co..    l.'>(i 

Mass.  52.">— !Mi.  47(1,    i047. 
Rolu'rtson  v.  West  .Icrs^'v  &  >S.  R.  Co., 

79  N.  .1.  L.   1S(>— 1002. 
Robinson   v.   Baker.  5  Cusli.    (Mass.), 

Ul—li-.VA. 
Robinsini    v.    Baltimoio   &    0.    1\.   Co.. 

129    Fed.  7;'):}— 127. 
Robinson   v.    Baltinuire   &    ().    R.   Co.. 

64  VV.  Va.  40(i— IS79. 
Robinson  v.   Bnrk'ijrh,  5  N.  H.  225— 

280. 
Robinson    v.    Chamberlain,    34    N.    Y. 

389— 8ri. 
Robinson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  135 

Mich.   254—1107,    1113. 
Robinson  v.  Chittenden,  69  N.  Y.  533 

—272. 
Robinson  v.  Cornish,   13  N.  Y.   Supp. 

577—39. 
Robinson    v.    Dunmore,    2   Bos.    &    P. 

416—14,  350. 
Robinson  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,   1 

H.  &  R.  97—344. 
Robinson  v.  Helena  Light  &  R.  Co.,  38 

Mont.   222—1023. 
Robinson   v.   London,  etc.,  R.   Co.,    19 

C.  B.  N.  S.  51 — 465,  466. 
Robinson    v.    Manhattan     R.     Co.,    5 

Misc.   R.    (N.   Y.)    209—1613. 
Robinson  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co..  16 

Fed.  57—327,  329,  330,  331,  333. 
Robinson      v.      Merchants'      Despatch 

Transp.  Co.,  44  Iowa,  470—52,  449, 

453,  582,  588. 
Robinson    v.    New   York    &    T.    S.    S. 

Co.,  74  N.  Y.  Supp.  384—2019. 
Robinson  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 

66  N.  Y.  11—1269. 
Robinson  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co..  20  Blatchf.  (U.  S.)   338—1105, 

1478,  1505. 
Robinson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  S.  Co.,  63 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   211—472. 
Robinson  v.  Rockland,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co., 

87  Me.  387—1407. 
Robinson  v.  Sontliern  I'ac.  R.  Co.,  105 

Cal.  526—1068. 


nobiiisoii    \.    St.    Jobnsbury,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  80  Vt.   129—1469. 
luibiiisoii    V.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 
(Mo.    Ai>p.),   77    S.    \V.   493  —  1167. 
1494. 

V.   Superior    B.   '1'.    Bv.   Co., 
34.5—1563. 

V.    Tbreadgill,    13    Irc.l.    L. 
.39—5. 
lacksoii.  13  Man.  B.   (Can.) 


Boitiiison 

!t4  Wis 

Bol)inson 

(X.  c: 

Roblin  V. 

328—267 
Robostclli 

.33    Fed. 
Roi)son    V. 

u.  c.  c. 

Robson  V. 
B.  13  iv 


B.  C, 


Co.,    10 


y.   New    ^'f)^k.   etc 

790—1029,   1666. 
,    Buiralo,    etc.,    B. 
.  P.  279—586. 

Nortlieastern   R.   Co..   2  i). 
85—1257. 

etc.,    R.   Co..    10.") 


Roche  V.   Brooklyn, 

N.  Y.  294—1561. 
Rockford,   etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Coultas,   67 

Til.  398—1368,   1638. 
Rock  Island,  etc.,  B.  Co.  v.  Potter,  36 

111.   App.  .590—730,  848. 
Rockv    Mount    Mills    v.    Wilmington, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    119    N.    C.    693—621, 

779. 
Roderick   v.   Railroad   Co.,   7    W.   Va. 

54—36. 
Rodgcra    v.    Missouri     Pac.    Rv.    Co. 

(Kan.),  88  Pac.  885—322. 
Rodman   v.   Chicago,   etc.,    R.   Co.,   90 

Mo.  App.  68—282. 
Rodrian    v.    New    York,    etc.,    B.    Co., 

125  N.  Y.  .526—1519. 
Roe    V.    Birkenhead,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    7 

Exch.  3(5—1184. 
Roedecker  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.^ 

87  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   227—1644. 
Rogan  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  51  Mo.  App. 

665—516,   616.   619. 
Rogers   v.   Atlantic   City   R.   Co.    (N, 

J.),  34  Atl.  11-1390. 
Rogers  v.   Great  Western   R.   Co.,    16 

U.  C.  Q.  B.  389—761. 
Rogers  v.  Head,  Cro.  Jac.  262—9.  11. 
Rogers    v.    Kenneljic    Steamboat    Co., 

86  Me.  261—987.   1450,   1463,   1465. 
Rogers  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  38  How. 

Pr.   (N.  Y.),  289—1.349. 
Rogers    v.    Long    Island    R.     Co.,     1 

Thomps.  &  C.  (N.  Y.)  396—1.375. 
Rogers  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  2  Lan.s. 

(N.  Y.)  269—187,  1347. 


TABLE  UF  CA«ES. 
(The   reforeuccs   are   to   the   pages.) 


cexvu 


Rogers  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.    (Tex. 

L'iv.  App.j,  28  S.  W.   1024 — 7(57. 
Rogers  v.   jlurray,   .3   Bosw.    (N.   Y.) 

ao7 — 35. 
Rogers    v.    New    York     &     Brooklyn 

Bridge,    11    App.  Div.    (X.   Y.)    l41 

—1234. 
Rogers  v.   Texas  &  P.   Ry.   Co.    {Tex. 

Liv.  App.),  94  S.  W.   158—841. 
Rogers   v.    Weir,   34  N.   Y.   463-328, 

329. 
Rogers  v.  Wendell,  54  Hun    (N.  Y'.), 

543 — 40. 
Rogers  v.  Wheeler,  52  N.  Y'.  2G2 — 83, 

171,   185,  375. 
Rogers  v.  Wheeler,  43  N.  Y.  598 — 46. 
Rogers  v.  Wheeler,  2  Lans.    (N.  Y.) 

48t) — 47. 
Rogers    Locomotive,    etc.,    Works    v. 

Erie  R.  Co.,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  379—41, 

121,    122,    124,    157. 
Rohl   V.  Parr,   1   Esp.  N.  P.   445—33. 
Rohrback    v.    Pullman's    Palace    Car 

Co.,   106   Fed.   797— 117C. 
Rolette    V.    Great    Northern     R.     Co. 

(Minn.),  97  N.  W.  431—1500,  1572, 

1038. 
Rolfs  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Kan.), 

71  Pac.  520—1025. 
Roll  v.  RagUL.t,  4  Ohio,  400—1449. 
Roller   V.   Sutter  St.   R.   Co.,   60   Gal. 

230—1080,   1507. 
Rome  R.  Co.  v.  Sloane,  39  Ga.  636— 

584. 
Rome  R.  Co.  V.  Sullivan,  32  Ga.  400 — 

343. 
Rome  R.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  25  Ga,  228 

—754. 
Rome  R.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,   14  Ga.  277 

—271,  280,  343,  380,  399,  413. 
Rome  R.  Co.  v.  Wimberly,  75  Ga.  316 

—1363. 
Romero  v.  McKernan,  88  N.  Y.  Supp. 

305—1300. 
Roniine    v.    Evansville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(hid.   App.),    50   N.    E.   245—1633. 
Rommel  v.  Schambaclier,  120  Pa.  519 

—  1187. 
Ronan   v.   Midland   R.   Co.,   L.   R.    14 

Ir.  157—404,  465,  521. 
Ro.»t  v.  Chandler,   10  W.  nd.    (X.  Y.) 

110— .531. 
Root  v.  DoH  Moines   Rv.  Co.    (Iowa), 

9S  N.  W.  291  —  1151". 
Rof>t  v.  (irejit  Wts'irii   R.  Co.,  54  X. 

Y.  .524 — 41.  43,  735.  738,  7'IS. 


Root  V.  Long  Inland  R.  Co.,  114  X.  Y. 

300-100,  720. 
Root  v.  L(jng  Island  R.  Co.,  1  X.  Y. 

St.  Rep.  5U3 — 008. 
Root  V.  New  York  Cent.  Sleeping  Car 

Co.,  28  Mo.  App.   199-64,  60. 
Root   V.   New    Yoik,   etc.,   R.    Co..   83 

Run    (X.    Y.),    111—851. 
Root   V.   Xew   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   83 

Hun   (X.  Y.),  111—151,  794. 
Rooth  V.  Xorth  Eastern  R.  Co.,  36  L. 

J.  Exch.  83—400. 
Rooth  V.  W  ilson,  1  B.  &  Aid.  59—11. 
Rosi:  V.  Des  Moines  Valley  R.  Co.,  39 

Iowa,    240—990,    1031, 'l033,    1450, 

1461,   1405. 
Rose  V.  King,   76  App.  Div.    (N.  Y. ) 

308—1708. 
Rose    V.    Loiiisviilo,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    70 

Miss.  725—1143. 
Rose    V.    Xoi-theru    Pac.    R.    Co.,    35 

Mont.  70—1342. 
Rose  V.  Stephens  Transp.  Co.,  11  Fed. 

483—1507. 
Rose  V.  Step]) ens,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  20 

Blackf.   (U.  S.)  411—1511. 
Rose  V.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106 

X.   C.   108—1150,    1176,   1720. 
Itoseman    v.    Carolina    Cent.    R.    Co., 

112  X.  C.  709—1258,  1403. 
Rosen    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    83 

Fed.  300—548. 
Rosenbaum  v.   St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

35    Minn.    173—1021,    1040,    1065, 

1264. 
Rosenborg   v.   Third   Ave.   R.   Co.,   47 

App.  Div.    (X.  Y.)    323—975. 
Rosencranz   v.    Swoflord    Bros.    D.    G. 

Co..   175  Mo.  518-640. 
Rosenfeld  v.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co., 

HI  App.  Div.   (X.  Y.)   371-285. 
Rosenfeld  v.  Peoria,  etc..  R.  Co.,  103 

Ind.    121—493,   516,   524,    1450. 
Rosenfeld  v.  Express  Co.,  1  Wood   (U. 

S.),    131—209,   612. 
Rosenkovitz  v.  United  Rv.,  etc.,,  Co., 

108   Md.  300-1020,    ll'oo,    1551. 
Rosenthal   v.   Weir,    170   X^   Y.    148 — 

499. 
Rosenthal  v.  Weir,  54  App.  Div.    (N 

Y.)    27.5—489. 
Ross  v.  Hill,  2  C.  B.  877—15. 
Ross  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Mo 

App.   583—1301,   1353,    1357. 
Hoss  V.  Xew  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

5   Ihin    (X'.  v.),  488-1003. 


ccxvm 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The    refert'iiocs   uru    to    tlu-    paijos.) 


llosa  V.  Phihulolphia,  etc.,  K.  (.  o.,  I'JD 

l*a.  :{7S — ISK'). 
Ross  V.   Kailroiid  Co.,   15    U.    1.    11'.) — 

Ross  V.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co..  4'.t  \t.  aOt 

—30,  551,  501. 
Ro'i.-^ior    V.    \\  iilKiah    R.    Co.,    115    Mo. 

Apj).  515— 1J!)8.  i;{50. 
lU>sted  V.  Great  Nortlicru  R.  Co.,  76 

Minn.   123—1107. 
Roth  V.  Rullalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  N.  Y. 

548— 1!)S.   3!»1,    1349,    1350,    1350. 
Rotli   V.   Haiiihurj^  Amer.   Packet  Co., 

1-i  N.  Y.   Siipp.  402—572. 
Roth    V.    Haiiibiu}!    Ain<'rican    P.    Oo., 

5!)  N.   Y.  Siiporior  Ct.  49-509. 
Rollieliild  Bros.  v.  Northern  Pac.   Ry. 

Co.,   68   Wash.   527—200,   319,   556. 
Roth    Clothing   Co.   v.   Maine   Steam- 
ship   (.o.,    44    Misc.   Rep.    (N.    Y.) 

237—258. 
Rothscliild  V.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co., 

09   111.    164— 3S0,  392. 
Rounds  V.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64 

N.  Y.  129—1155,  1168,  1181,  1184, 

1425. 
Rouser  v.  North  Park  St.  R.  Co.,  97 

Mich.  505—1417,   1418. 
Rouston    V.    Detroit   United    Ry.,    151 

Mich.   237—1091. 
Rowan  v.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.,  80  App. 

Div.    (N.  Y.)    31—334,  499,  586. 
Rowdin   v.   Pennsylvania   R.    Co.,   208 

Pa.  623—1037,  "l494. 
Rowe  V.  Rrooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.,  80 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   477—1072,  1414. 
Rowe    V.    Brooklyn,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    71 

App.  Div.    (N.'Y.)   474 — 1068. 
■Rr-^o  V.  Pickford,  8  Taunt,  83—386, 

392. 
Rowland  v.  Miln,  2  Hilt.  (N.  Y.)   150 

—199,  258,  259. 
Rowland   v.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

61   Conn.   103—628. 
Rown  v.  Chris.topher,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co., 

34  Hun    (N.  Y.),  471—1182,   1183, 

1389. 
Royston   v.   Illinois   C^-nt.  R.   Co.,   07 

Miss.   370—1187,   1190. 
Rozwadosf-kie   v.    Interna/tional,   etc., 

R.  Co.,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  487—1012, 

1236. 
Rubens    v.    Lu;dgate    Hill    Stfamshiyi 

Co.,  20  N.  Y.  Supp.  481—189.  441. 


Kul>iii   V.    liilrhniougli    ILip.   Tr.   Co., 

130  N.  Y.  Supp.  00—1210. 
Ruliin  v.  Wells  Fargo  Kxpriiss  C/O.,  85 

N.    V.   Supp.    1U!8— 2S0. 
Rucii  v.  Aurora,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   150  111. 

App.    329—993. 
Ruck   v.   llallield,  5    P..  &  Aid.  032— 

214. 
R\icker    v.    Donovan,    13    Kan.    251 — 

041. 
Ruckw    v.    Mi.«;souri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    01 

Tex.  499-1010. 
Ruddle  v.  Ba'timore  &  0.  R.  Co.,   152 

111.  App.  218—593. 
Ruddy  V.  Midland  Creat  Western   R. 

Co.,  L.  R.  8  Ir.  224—345. 
RudcU  V.  Ogdensburg  Transit  Co.,  117 

Mich.    508-540,    543. 
Rudy   V.   Rio  Grand   Western  R.   Co., 

8    Utah,    165—1258,    1428. 
Ruebsain    v.    St.    Louis    Transit    Co., 

108  Mo.  App.  437—1392. 
Ruliin  V.  Ruggiero,  10  Misc.  Rep.   (N. 

Y.)    39-208. 
Ruggles  V.  Buckner,  1  Paine  (U.  S.), 

303—648. 
Rumsey  v.  North  Eastern  R.  Co.,   14 

C.   B.  N.   S.   641—1304. 
Runyan   v.   Central   R.   Co.   of  N.   J., 

05  N.  J.  I^w  228—1077. 
Runvon    v.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    74 

N.'  J.   L.   225—1415. 
Ruppel    V.   Alleghany   Valley   R.    Co., 

107   Pa.   100—119,   152,  358,  582. 
Ruschenberg  v.  Southern  El.  Ry.  Co., 

101  Mo.  70—1563. 
Rush  ford   v.   Hadfield,  6   East,  519— 

10,  629,  630. 
Russ    V.    Steamboat    War    Eagle,    14 

Iowa,   3G3— 946. 
Russ  V.  The  War  Eagle,  14  Iowa,  363 

—990,  991. 
Russel  V.  Aumais  Rap.  Jud.,  18  C.  S. 

472—23. 
Russell    V.    Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    37 

Mont.    1—598. 
Russell   V.   Hudson    River   R.    Co.,    17 

N.  Y.  134—1003. 
Russell  V.  Livingston,  10  N.  Y.  510— 

518,  212. 
Russell    v.   Livingston,    19    Barb.    (N. 

Y.)    340—39,  40,  204. 
Russell   V.   Madden,   95   III.   485—390. 
Ru'^^ell   V.   N'Mman,    17   Com.   B.    (N. 

S.)   163—324. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


ccxuc 


Russell  V.  New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co., 

10  Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    593 — 564. 
Russell    V.    Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

157   Ind.  305—1464,   1467. 
Russell  V.  Quincv,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  Mo. 

App.  441—1527. 
Russell  V.    Seattle,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.,   47 

Wash.  500—1496. 
Russell  Grain  Co.  v.  Wabash  R.  Co., 

114  Mo.  App.  488—361,  366. 
Russell  Mfg.  Co.  v.  New  Haven  Steam- 
boat Co.,  52  N.  Y.  657—164. 
Russell  Mfg.  Co.  v.  New  Haven  Steam- 
boat Co.,  50  N.  Y.  121—398. 
Rutherford  v.  McGowen,  1  Nott.  &  M. 

(S.  C.)   19—59. 
Rutherford  v.  Shreveport.  etc.,  R.  Co.. 

41  La.  Ann.  793—1714,  1723,  1724. 
Rutherford  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),   67   S.  W.   161— 

1028. 
Ruthvan    Woolen   Mfg.    Co.   v.   Great 

Western  R.  Co.,  18  U.  C.  C.  P.  316 

—019. 
Rutland  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  81  S.  C. 

448—622. 
R.  W.  Williamson  &  Co.  v.  Texas  & 

P.   Ry.   Co.    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),    138 

S.  W.  807—191,  242,  276,  385. 
Rvall  V.  Kennedv.  40  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 

'(8  Jones  &  S*)    347—1203,  1252. 
Rvan  V.  Cumberland  Valley  R.  Co.,  23 

■pa.   St.  384—1063. 
Ryan  v.  Gilmer,  2   Mont.   517—1213, 

1488. 
Ryan     v.    Great    Northern     Ry.     Co. 

(Minn.),  95  N.  W.  758—209. 
Ryan  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  121  N.  Y. 

126—1125,  1234. 
Ryan  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Tex. 

1.3 — 431,  448,  452,  453,  577. 
Rvder  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51 

"lowa.  460—211. 
Rvder  v.  Hathaway,  21  Pick.   (Ma.ss. ) 

'•298—267. 
Ryder  v.  Kinsey.  02  Minn.  85—1479. 
Rvland  v.  Peters,  5  Pa.  Law  G.  Rep. 

'126—42. 
Rvland  &  Rankin  v.  Chesapeake,  etc., 

R.   Co.    (W.   Va.),  46  S.   E.   923— 

271,  28L 


s. 

Sabine,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cruse,  83  Tex. 

460—270. 
Sage  v.  Gittner,  11  Barb.   (N.  Y.)   120 

—80. 
Sager  v.  Portsmouth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31 

Me.     228—97.     428,    455,   464,    551, 

576,    579,    638,    1452,    1453,    1461, 

1462. 
Sahlgaard  v.  St.  Paul  City  R.  Co.,  48 

Minn.  232—1614. 
Saleeby  v.  Central  R.  Co.  of  N.  J.,  99 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   163—1298,  1301, 

1332. 
Sales  v.   Western   Stage  Co.,  4  Iowa, 

547—1132. 
Salinger  v.  Simmons,  8  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S. 

(N.  Y.)   409—393. 
Salinger   v.    Simmons,    57    Barb.    (N. 

Y.)   513—185,  188. 
Salmon  v.   City   Electric  R.   Co.,   124 

Ga.  1056—1102. 
Salters  v.  Delaware,   etc..   Canal   Co., 

3  Hun   (N.  Y.)   340—1114. 
Saltonstall   v.    Stockton,    13   Pet.    (U. 

S.)    181,  Taney    (U.  S.),   11—1132, 

1136,  1511,  1581. 
Saltsman  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  73 

Hun  (N.  Y.),  567—1198. 
Saltsman  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  65  Hun    (N.  Y.),  448—437. 
Saltus  v.  Everett,  20  Wend.   (N.  Y.) 

267—75,  649,  633. 
Sambric  v.  Southern  Pac.  Co.   (Cal.), 

71   Pac.  174—1268. 
Samms  v.   Stewart,  20  Ohio,  69 — 11, 

13,  24. 
Sample  v.  Consol.  L.  &  Ry.  Co.,  50  W. 

Va.  472—1563. 
Samuel   v.   Cheney,    135   Mass.   278 — 

210. 
Samuels  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3.') 

S.  C.  493—1256,  1722,  1726. 
San  Antonio  &  A.  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Cle- 
ments. 30  Tex.  Civ.  App.  498—687. 
San  Antonio  &  A.  P.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Winn 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),   1.12  S.  W.  972— 

385. 
San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  0 

Tex.  Civ.  App.   102—1052. 
San  Antonio,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Avery.  10 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  235—147. 
San  Antonio,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Bailev.  4 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  Caa.,  §  07—149; 


ccxx 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The    referi'm.t.'s    lUf    lo   the    pages.) 


San   Antouio,  etc,   R.   Co.   v.    Kariult. 

•J7    Tex.    Civ.    .Vpp.    4!tS— .">4(),    1»07, 

923. 
San    .Vntonio.  etc..   R.   Co.   v.    IJarnett 

(Tex.   Civ.   App.).  27   S.   \V.  (i7.">— 

;?G2. 
Siui   Antonio,  eti\.   R.   Co.  v.   R.iiiu'tt. 

70  Tex.  151  —  1544.  1546. 
San    .Vntonio,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Broad- 
Davis  Cattle  Co.    (Tex.  Civ.  App.). 

140  S.  W.  514— 7S8.  807. 
San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Chittim 

(Te.x.  Civ.  App.).  135  S.  W.  747— 

807.  869.  874,  912. 
San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Chittim 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  133  S.  W.  390— 

833. 
^an   Antonio,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Choate. 

22  Tox.  Civ.  App.  618—1661. 
San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Dolan 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.).   85   S.  W.  .302— 

858.  874.  879. 
San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Josev 

(Tex.    Civ.   App.).   71    S.   W.   606— 

599. 
San  Antonio,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Lynch.  8 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  51.3—1058. 
San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Lvnch 

(Tex.   Civ.   App.).  40   S.  W.  631— 

1056. 
San  Antonio,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Mavfield 

(Tex.    App.),    15    S.    W.   50.3—7.57, 

767. 
San    Antonio,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    Moore 

(Tex.   Civ.   App.),  39   S.  W.  960— 

749. 
San  Antonio,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Pratt.  89 

Tex.  310—599. 
San   Antonio,   etc.,   R.   Co.     v.    Pratt 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.).   .32   S.   W.   70,5— 

838,  848. 
San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robinson, 

73  Tex.  277—1501.  1.563. 
San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson 

(Tex.   Civ.   App.),  66   S.  W.   792— 

.356,  600.  602,  734. 
San   Antonio,   etc.,   R.   Ck).   v.   Tinion. 

102  Tex.  222—930. 
San    Antonio,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    Timon 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.).   110  S.   W.   82— 

9.32. 
San    Antonio,   etc..   R.    Co.   v.   Timon 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  99  S.  W.  418— 

932. 
San   Antonio,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Turner 


(Tex.   Civ.  App.),   94    S.   W.   214— 

790,  840. 
San    .\ntonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Tiiriicv 

(Tex.   Civ.    App.),   78   S.   W.   256— 

172S. 
San  .\iitonio,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Williams 

(Tex.   Civ.    App.),   57    S.   W.   883— 

541,  542. 
San   Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.   v.   Wriglil. 

20  Tex.  Civ.  App.   136—147,  923. 
San    Antonio    Tract.    Co.     v.     Bryant 

(Tex.),  70  S.  W.  1015—1618. 
San    Antonio   Tract   Co.   v.   Crawfoid 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  71   S.   W.   .30(i— 

1175. 
San  Antonio  Tract.  Co.  v.  Davis  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  101  S.  W.  5.54—1178. 
San  Antonio  Tract.  Co.  v.  Flory  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  100  S.  W.  200—1111. 
San    Antonio   Tract.    Co.   v.    Lambkin 

(Tex.  Civ.   App.),  99   S.   W.   574- 

1178. 
San    Antonio    Tract.    Co.     v.     Welti m 

(Tex.),  77  S.  W.  414—1681. 
Sanbern   v.  Panama  R.  Co.,  205   Fed. 

348—2035. 
Sanbern  v.  Wrij^ht  &  Cobb  Lighterage 

Co.,    171    Fed.   449—2029. 
Sanchez  v.   San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 

3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  89—1689. 
Sanden     v.     Northern     Pac.     R.     Co. 

(Mont.),   115  Pac.  408-1422. 
Sanders  v.  McLean,  11  Q.  B.  Div.  327 

—231. 
Sanders  v.  Reister,  1  Dak.  172 — 1544. 
Sanders  v.  Southern  Elec.  R.  Co.,  147 

Mo.  411—1510. 
Sanders  v.   Vanzeller,   4   Q.   B.   294 — 

525. 
Sanders   v.   Young,    1    Head    (Tenn.i. 

219—59. 
Sanderson     v.     Lamberton.     6      Bin 

(Pa.)    129-295. 
Sanderson    v.   Nortliern    Pac.    R.   Co 

88  Minn.  162—1719. 
Sanderson  v.  Panther  Lumber  Co     50 

W.  Va.  42—1063. 
Sandford  v.  American  Dist.  Telegraph 

Co.,    13   Mi.sc.   R.    (N.   Y.)    88—21 

106,  109. 
Sandford  v.  American  Dist.  Telegrai)h 

Co.,  6  Misc.  R.    (N.  Y.)    534—106 

109. 
Sandford   v.    Catawissa.    etc.,   R    Co 

24  Pa.  St.  378—41,  121,  157. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references  are   to   the   pages.) 


CCXXl 


San  Diego  Flume  Co.  v.  Souther,  112 

Fed.  228—111. 
San  Diego  Land  Co.  v.  National  City, 

174  U.  S.  754—1762. 
Sands  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  108  Tenn. 

1—1060. 
Sandusky    Portland    Cement    Co.    v. 
Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co.,  187  Fed.  5S3 
—657. 
Sanford  v.  Eighth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  20  N. 
Y.  Super.  Ct.   (7  Bosw.)   122—1435. 
Sanford  v.  Eighth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  23  N. 
Y.  343—975,  1155,  1181,  1389,  1434, 
1713. 
Sanford   v.   Hestonville,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

136  Pa.  St.  84—1639. 
Sanford    v.    Housatonic    R.    Co.,     11 

Cush.    (Mass.)    155—482,  487. 
Sangamon,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Heniy,   14 

111.  156—597,  604. 
Sanquer   v.   London,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    16 

C.  B.  16.3—272. 
Sansom  v.  Southern  R.  Co..  Ill  Fed. 

887—1107. 
Sanson   v.   Philadelphia  Rap.  Transit 

Co.,  239  Pa.  505—1525. 
Santa    Fe,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Arizona 

Smelting  Co.,  13  Ariz.  95—632. 
Santa  Fe,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grant  Bros. 
Const.    Co.,    228    U.     S.     177—424, 
1811. 
Santa   Fe  Pac.   R.   Co.   v.   Bossut,    10 

N.  M.  322—330,  641. 
Santa  Fe,   P.  &  P.   Ry.   Co.   v.  Grant 
Bros.  Const.  Co.    (Ariz.),   108  Pac. 
467—13,  22. 
Santvoord  v.  St.  John,  6  Hill  (N.  Y.), 

157—241. 
Saratoga,    etc.,    R.    Co.     v.     Row,     24 

Wend.   (N.  Y.)    74—628. 
Sargent  v.  B.  &  L.  Rv  Corp.,  115  Mass. 

422—162. 
Sargent  v.  Gile,   8  N.  H.   325,   331  — 

280. 
Satterlee  v.  Groat,   1   Wend.    (N.  Y.) 

272—12,  71,  988,  1017. 
Saunders   v.    Adams   Express   Co.,    76 

X.  J.  Law,  228—508. 
Saunders   v.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   6 

S.  D.  40—1476. 
Saunders  v.  Southern  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  90 

S.  C.  79—387,  557. 
Saunders    v.    Southern    Rv.    Co.,    128 
Fed.  115—1037,  1292,  1.302.  1.306. 


Sauter   v.   Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co.    78 

Kan.   331—307,   317. 
Sauter   v.   New   York    Cent.,    etc..   R. 

Co.,  66  X.  Y.  50—1220,  1243. 
Sauter   v.   New   York    Cent.,   etc.,    R. 

Co.,  6  Hun   (N.  Y.),  446—1236. 
Savage  v.  Corn  Exch.  F.,  etc.,  Co.,  4 

Bosw.    (N.  Y.)    1—546. 
Savage    v.    Illinois   Cent.   R.    Co.,    164 

III.  App.  634—1591,  1649. 
Savage    m-    Marlborough    St.    R.    Co., 

186  Mass.  203 — 1494. 
Savagean  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.  Co.,  210 

Mass.   164—1483,   1606. 
Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bonaud,  58 

Ga.  180—1259,  1260. 
Savannah,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Boyle,   115 

Ga.  836—1186. 
Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bundick    94 

Ga.  775—628,  656. 
Savannah,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  Collins,  77 

Ga.  376—524,  586,  756. 
Savannah,  etc,  R.  Co.  v.  Commercial 

Guano  Co.,  103  Ga.  590—317. 
Savannah,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Flaherty^ 

110  Ga.  335—1608. 
Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Godkin,  104 

Ga.  65.5 — 1426. 
Savannah,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Harris    ''6 

Fla.  148—570,  739,  747,  777. 
Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holland,  82 

Ga.  257—1557. 
Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mcintosh.  7a 

Ga.  5,32-1369. 
Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pritchard   77 

Ga.   412—595,  605,  619,  743. 
Savannah,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Sloat,  93  Ga 

808—492. 
Savannah,  etc.,   R.  Co.   v.   Steinineer 
84  Ga.  579—568.  ' 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Toibert    123 

Ga.  378-633. 
Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.   v.   Wilcox    48 

Ga.  432—328,  331. 
Savannah   Bureau  of  Freight,  etc   v. 
Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Int.  Com 
Rep.  479—1829. 
Savannah  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Bryan,  86  Ga 

312—1169. 
Savery   v.   New    York    Cent.,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  R.  210—1776. 
Savery   v.   New   York    Cent.,   etc.,    R. 
Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  C.  Rep.  338— I7n2 
Saville  v.  Campion,  2  B.  &  Aid.  503— 
648. 


V^-LXXll 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


(The    rcfuniioes   are   to   the   pages.) 


Sawver    v.    Chicago,    etc..    R. 

W'is.  403— 20S. 
Sawver  v.  l\)rst',   17  (irntt 


—85. 
Sawver  v. 

1 133 . 
Sawver 


Co..    22 
Viv)   230 
Diihuiy.  .iO  T.\.  J7!)— 1132, 
R.   Co..  37 
98 


Hannibal,   et< 


Co.. 

Mo.  240—1123.  1213.  lilOl.  1512. 
Saxton    v.    Mi>siniri    Pao.    R.    Co., 

Mix  App.  4'.14— 1221. 
Scaife  v.  Farrant,  L.  R.  10  Exoh.  3.'')8 

—  15. 
Scaling   v.    rnllman   Palace   Car   Co., 

24   Mo.  App.  20—64. 
Scamell  v.  St.  T.ouis  Tr.  Co.,  102  Mo. 

App.  IPS— IGSl. 
Scannard  v.  Prince.  64  N.  Y.  300 — 80. 
Scarlett  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  41 

U.  C.  C.  P.  211—466. 
Schaefer  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  98 

Mo.  App.   154—1563. 
Schaefer  v.   St.   Louis  &   S.   Rv.   Co., 

128  Mo.  64— <>46.  054.  975. 
Schaeffer  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

168  Pa.  St.,  209—578,  904. 
Sohafer  v.  Gilmer,  13  Nev.  330—1132. 
.Seharli?  v.  Meyer,  133  Mo.  428—232. 
Sclielffer  v.  Washington  City,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,   105  U.  S.  249—1704, 
■.Schenberger  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  84 
^      ,KauF.  79—1846. 
*  bcherikel  V.  Pittsburg  &  B.  Tract.  Co., 

194  Pa.  St.  182—1218. 
Schepers  v.  Union  Depot  R.  Co.,   126 

AIo    665—940,  1018,  1019,  1615. 
Scheu  V.  Benedict,  116  N.  Y.  510,  249, 

260,  407. 
Scheu  V.  Erie  R.  Co.,  10  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

498—233. 
Scliieffclin   v.   Harvey,    6   Johns.    (N. 

Y.)    170—75. 
Schiff  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

.52  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)   91—770. 
Schiff  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

16  Hun    (N.  Y.)    278—768. 
Schiffler  v.   Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   96 

Wis.    141—1255. 
Srliiller  v.  Dry  Dock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26 

Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  392—1249,  1591. 
Schimpf  V.  Harris,  185  Pa.  St.  46 — 

1162. 
Schlesinger  v.  West  Shore  R.  Co.,  88 

111.  App.  273—206. 
Schley  v-  Susquehanna  &,  N.  Y.  R.  Co., 

227  Pa.  494—1009. 


Schlicliting   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   Ry.   Co. 

(Iowa),  96  N.  W.  959—220. 
Schloss    V.    Atchison,   etc.,    K.    Co.,   85 

Tex.  601  —  190,  193,  ^69. 
Schloss  v.  Wood,  11  Colo.  287—20,  23, 

41,  44.  74,  81. 
S<'hlosser  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co., 

20  N.  D.  406—290,  895. 
Schmidt  v.    Blood,   9   Wend.    (N.  Y.) 

268—16,  570. 
Sclimidt   V.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  83 

HI.  405—1133. 
Schmidt   v.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   90 

Wis.   504—83.   376. 
Schmidt  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25 

Ky.  L.  Rep.   11—1419,   1707. 
Schmidt  v.  Coney  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 

49  N.  Y.  Supp.  777—1555. 
Schmidt  V.  Humphrey,  48  Iowa,  652 — 

1599. 
Schmidt  v.  New  Orelans  Rys.  Co.,  116 

La.  311—1134. 
Schmidt   v.   North   Jersey   St.    R.   Co. 
(N.  J.  L.),  58  Atl.  72— IGIO,  1620. 
Schmitt  v.  Dry  Dock,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  3 

St.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)   257—1556. 
Schneidan  v.  New  Orleans  &  C.  R.  Co., 

48  La.  Ann.  866—1002. 
Schneider  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 

125  App.  Div.  911—1484. 
Schneider  v.  Evans,  25  Wis.  241—637, 

639.  781. 
Schneider     v.     Market    St.     Ry.     Co. 

(Cal.),  66  Pac.  734—1693. 
Schneider  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  133 

N.  Y.  583—1116. 
Schneider  v.   Second   Ave.  R.  Co.,   15 

N.  Y.  Supp.  556—1118. 
Schnitzmeyer  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co., 

147  III.  App.  101—1356. 
Schocnfeld  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co., 

49  La.  907—857. 

Schoenfelt    v.    Metropolitan    St.    Ry. 

Co.,  40  Misc.   Rep.    (N.   Y.)    201— 

1589. 
Schonlinff  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co., 

135  Mo.  App.  70.5—887. 
School   Dist.   V.   Boston,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

102  Mass.  556—1458. 
Schooner  Emma  Johnson,  1  Spr.    (U. 

S.)   527—75. 
Schooner  v.  Reeside,  2  Summ.  (U.  S.) 

567—75. 
Sclinpman   v.   Boston,   etc.,   R.   Corp., 

9  Cush.    (Mass.)    24—976. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CCXXIU 


(The  references   are   to   the   pages. 


Schroeder  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co..  12 

N.   Y.   Super.   Ct.    (5   Duer.)    55— 

252,  270,  271,  754,  755. 
Schroyer    v.    Lynch,    8    Watts    (Pa.) 

453—85. 
Schubach  v.  McDonald.   179  Mo.   163 

—1029. 
Schuler  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  1  Misc. 

R.    (N.  Y.)   351—1201,   1561. 
Schulze  V.  Great  Eastern  R.  Co.,   19 

Q.  B.  Div.  30—601.  613. 
Schum   v.    Pennsylvania    R.   Co.,    107 

Pa.  St.  8—1518. 
Schumacher  v.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

108  111.  App.  .520—196,  636,  643. 
Schumaker   v.   Chicago,   etc.,    R.   Co., 

207  111.  199 — 627,  689,  702. 
Schureman   v.   Withers,   Anth.   N.   P. 

(N.  Y.)    230—653. 
Schurr  v.  Houston,    10   St.   Rep.    (N. 

Y.)   262—958,  985.  989,  1285,  1576, 

1679. 
Schutte  V.   Weir,  59   Misc.  Rep.  438, 

111  N.  Y.  Supp.  240—501,  1917. 
Schuyler    v.    Southern    Pac.    Co.,    37 

Utah,  612—955,  1050,  1803. 
Schwab  V.  Union  Line,   13  Mo.  App. 

159—342,   343,   345,   363. 
Schwartz  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  18 

Hun   (N.  Y.)   157—87,  93. 
Schwartz   v.   Missouri,   etc.,   Rv.   Co., 

83  Kan.  30—1469. 
Schwartzchild  A  Co.  v.  Savannah,  etc., 

Co.,  76  Mo.  App.  623—216. 
Schwartzman  v.  Brooklvn  Heights  R. 

Co.,   84   App.   Div.    (N.   Y.)    608 — 

1166. 
Schwerin  v.   McKie,   51   N.  Y.    180 — 

414,  588. 
Schwerin  v.  Xorth  Pac.  C.  R.  Co.,  36 

Fed.  710—1144. 
Schwinger  v.  Raymond,  83  N.  Y.  192 

—681. 
Scioto  Valley  Tract.  Co.  v.  Cravbill, 

29  Ohio  C.  C.  R.  .5—1427. 
Scofield  V.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Int.  Com.  Rep.  62—1786.  1700,  1826. 
Scofield  V.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 

Int.  Com.  C.  Rep.   116—1823. 
Scofield  V.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43 

Ohio  St.  .571 — 41,  44. 
Scofield  V.  May,  62  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y  ) 

243—1.342. 
Scothorn    v.    South    Staffordshire    R. 

Co.,  8  Exch.  341—242,  744. 


Scott  V.  Allegheny  Valley  R.  Co.,  172 

Pa.  St.  646—552. 
Scott   V.    Baltimore,    etc..    Steamboat 

Co.,  19  Fed.  56—119,  357. 
Scott  V.   Bergen   County   Tr.   Co..   63 

N.    J.    L.    407—1215^    1221,     1224, 

1487,  1488,  1639. 
Scott  V.  Boston,  etc..  Steamship  Co., 

106  Mass.  468—597. 
Scott  V.  Central  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53 

Hun   (N.  Y.)   414—1169. 
Scott  V.   Cleveland,   etc.,   R.  Co.,   144 

Ind.  125—1431. 
Scott  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  23  U. 

C.  C.  P.  182—466. 
Scott  V.  London  Docks  Co.,  3  H.  &  C. 

596—1478,  1479. 
Scott  V.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co.,  138 

Mo.  App.  21.5 — 989. 
Scott  V.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co.,  137 

Mo.  App.  196 — 1625. 
Scott  V.  Provinces,  1  Pittsb.  R.   (Pa.> 

19—257. 
Scott  v.  Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  127  S.  W.  849—598,  868. 
Scott  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  16  N.  Y. 

Supp.  350—1692. 
Scott  County  Milling  Co.  v.  St.  Louis, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  127  Mo.  App.  80—201 

310,  443. 
Scoville  v.  Griffith,  12  N.  Y.  509—136 

285,  607,  1298. 
Scow  No.  190  and  Four  Hundred  and 

Fifty  Bales  Cotton,  88  Fed.  320 — 

685. 
Scranton  v.  Bank,  24  N.  Y.  424 — 328. 
Scroggins  v.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co.^ 

138  Mo.  App.  21,5—1683. 
Scruggs  V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 

Fed.  318—454,  491. 
Scully  V.  New  York,  etc..  R.  Co.,  80 

Hun    (N.  Y.)    197—1665. 
Seaboard    Air    Line    Ry.    v.    Atlantic 

Compress  Co.,  135  Ga.  413 — 475. 
Seaboard   Air  Line  Ry.  v.  Friedman 

128  Ga.  316—833,  915. 
Seaboard    Air    Li;)e    Ry.    v.     Harper 

Piano  Co.,  63  Fla.  2*64 — 383. 
Seaboard  Air  Line  Ry.  v.  Main    132 

N.  C.   44.5—1458. 
Seaboard    Air    Line    Ry.    v     PImIFIds 

108  Md.  285—277.     "  ' 

Seaboard    Air    Line    Hv.    v.    Hcuti'.   & 

Little,  60  Fla.  429—346. 


It.' XXIV 


TARLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   refcifuocs   are   to   tlio   |)a<j;os. ) 


iSeabouril  Air  \/mv  Rv.  v.  Scarbormi^'li, 

52  Fla.  42:.-  1 :«».{.' 
Seaboard  Air  l.ino  Ily.  v.  Sbaokelfoni, 

5  Ga.  App.  :!!•:.     ti-iS.  664. 
Scnhoard  .\ir  l.im-  Ry.  v.  Smith,  3  Ga. 

App.    1—1446. 
Soaboavd    Air    l.ino    Ry.    v.    Soiithorn 

Flour  &  Or.  Co.,  138  Ga.  604—640. 
Seaboard,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Cautlieii,  115 

Ga.  422—815. 
Seaboard,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spentrr.   1 1 1 

Ga.  868—1122. 
Seamon  v.  Koehler,   122  N.  Y.  646 — 

1514. 
Searle   v.   Kanawlia.   etc.,   R.   Co.,   32 

W.  Va.  370—1214. 
Searle  v.  Lavcrick,  9  Q.  B.  122—107, 

410. 
Searles  v.   Alabama,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   69 

Miss.   186—742,  778. 
Searles  v.  Canawha,  etc.,  R.  Co.    (W. 

Va.),  9  S.  E.  248—1235. 
Searles  v.   Kanawha,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

W.  Va.  370—1080. 
Searles  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,   101   N. 

Y.  661—1533. 
Searles  v.  Mann  Boudoir  Car  Co.,  45 

Fed.  330—66. 
Sears    v.    Eastern    R.    Co.,    14    Allen 

(Ma'^s.)   433—1227,  1260. 
Sears  v.  Seattle  Consol.  St.  R.  Co.,  6 

Wash.  227—1717. 
Sears  v.  \Aills.  1  Black  (U.  S.)   108— 

644. 
Sears  v.  Wills,  4  Allen    (Mass.)    212 

—16,  644. 
Sears  v.  Wingate,  85  Mass.  (3  Allen) 

106—229,  671. 
Seasongood  v.  Owensboro  &  N.  R.  Co., 

14  Ky.  L.  Rep.  430-1356. 
Seasongood  v.  Tennessee  &  O.  Transp. 

Co.   (Ky.),  54  S.  W.  19.3—116. 
Seaver  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Gray 

(Mass.)    466—1063. 
Seaver   v.   Bradley,    179   Mass.   329 — 

101. 
Seawell  v.  Kansas  City,  etc..  Ry.  Co., 

119  Mo.  222—720. 
Secor  V.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   10   Fed. 

15—1676. 
Secord   v.   St.   Paul,   etc.,   R.   Co..    18 

Fed.  221— 10r)7.  1133,  1715. 
Secord  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Mc- 
Crarv  (U.S.)  515—985,  1211,  1705. 


S.Minitv  Trust  Co.  v.  Wella.   Fargo  k 

Vi>.    kxprcss,    178   N.   Y.    620—233, 

448.  47S,  479.  483. 
Security  Trust  Co.  v.  Wells  Fargo  & 

Co.  Express.  81   App.  Div.    (N.  Y.) 

426—206,  211,  277. 
Sedgwick  v.  Macy,  24  App.  Div.   1 — 

532. 
Scdoff   V.   Chicago  City   Ry.   Co.,    124 

111.    App.    609—1496. 
Seelig  V.  Metropolitan  St.  Rv.  Co.,  18 

Misc.  Rep.   (i\.  Y.)   383—1218. 
Segal  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  80  S.  W.  233—1189. 
Seibcrt  v.    Pliiladelphia,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

15  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  435—211. 
Seigel  V.  Eisen,  41  Cal.   109—1639. 
Seipp   V.   Dry   Dock,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   45 

App.   Div.    (N.  Y.)    489—1564. 
Selbv  V.  Detroit  Ry.    (Mich.),  81   N, 

W.  106—1245. 
Selbv  V.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113 

N.'  C.  588—520,  794,  880. 
Self  V.  Adel  Lumber  Co.,  5  Ga.  App. 

846—946,    1062. 
Self  V.  Dunn.  42  Ga.  528—11,  60. 
Seller  v.  Market  St.  Rv.  Co.,  139  Cal. 

268,  72  Pac.  1006—1590,  1641,  1642. 
Seller  v.  Steamship  Pacific,  1  Ore.  409 

—193,  452,  457,  469,  1452,  1458. 
Sellers   v.   Union   Tract.   Co.,   21    Pa. 

Super.  Ct.  5—1610. 
Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Butts,  43   Ala. 

38.5 — 41,  733,  752. 
Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

139  U.  S.  560—579. 
Selma  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Owen,   132 

Ala.  420,  31  So.  598—1268,  1581. 
Selwav  V.  Holloway,  1  Ld.  Raym.  46 

—182. 
Senf  V.  St.  Louis  &  S.  R.  Co.,  112  Mo. 

App.  74—1681. 
Serviss    v.    Ann    Arbor    R.    Co.,    169 

Mich.   564—960.    1005,    1483. 
Sessions    v.    Southern    Pac.    Co.,    159 

Cal.   599—1275. 
Sessions  v.  Western  R.  Corp.,  16  Gray 

(Mass.)    1.32—203,  391. 
Sever  v.  MiiHieaj)olis  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co. 

(Iowa).  137  X.  W.  937—1526. 
Sevier  v.  Viekshurg,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  61 

Miss.  8—69,  1257. 
Sewall   V.    Allen,    6    Wend.     (N.    Y.) 

335,  337,  349—108,  109,  110,  527. 


TABLE  OF  CASES, 
(ihe  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


ccxx^ 


Sewell   V.   Atchison,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    78 

Kan.  1—1055. 
Sewell    V.    Detroit    United    Ry.,    158 

Mich.  407—1497. 
Sexton  V.  Graham,  53  Iowa,  181 — 267. 
Sexton  V.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  26 

Misc.   R.    (N.  Y.)    432—1615. 
Sevbolt  V.  New  York,  etc..  R.  Co.,  95 

X.  Y.  562—1049.   1449.   1454,   14.55. 

1456,   1466,   1477,   1494,   1500,   1533. 

1534. 
Seymour   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   3 

Biss.  (U.  S.)   43—1211,  1233,  1715. 

1723. 
Sevmour  v.  Citizens'  R.  Co.,  114  Mo. 

266—1101. 
Seymour  v.  Greenwood,  7  H.  &  X.  355 

—1181. 
Sevmour   v.   Town   of   Lake,   66   Wis. 

651—1596. 
Shackt   V.    Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.,    94 

Tenn.  665 — 524. 
Shailer  &  Schniglan  Co.  v.  Corcoran, 

11  Ohio  C.  D.  599—1122. 
Shamberg   v.   Delaware,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

3  Int.  Com.  R.  502—1790. 
Shanahan   v.   St.   Louis   Tr.   Co.,    109 

Mo.  App.  228—1620. 
Shankenburv   v.   Metropolitan    St.   R. 

Co.,   46   Fed.    177—1583. 
Shannon   v.   Boi*ton.   etc.,    R.   Co..   78 

Me.     52—989,     1598,     1675,     1677, 

1678. 
Shannon  v.  Union  R.  Co.,  27  R.  I.  475 

— 1003. 
Shannon's  Admr.  v.  Chesapeake  &  O. 

Ry.  Co.,   104  Va.  645—1277. 
Sharer  v.    Paxson,    171    Pa.   St.   26— 

999,   1017,   1167. 
Sharlotskv  v.  New  York  Rv.  Co.,  88 

N.  Y.  Supp.  1014—1251.  ' 
Sharp  V.  Grey.  9  Bing.  457 — 1117. 
Shattuck    V.    Rand,    142    Mass.    83— 

101. 
Shaughnessv  v.  Consol.  Tract.  Co.,   17 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  588—1593. 
Shaw    V.    Canadian    Pac.    R.     Co.,    5 

Manitoba   L.    Rep.   334—1330. 
Shaw  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  7  U.  C. 

C.  P.  493—1300. 
Shaw  V.   Merchants'   Nat.   Bank.    101 

U.  S.  557—218. 
Shaw    V.    Northi-rn    Pac.    R.    Co.,    40 

Afinn.   144—1306,   1348. 


Shaw   V.    Railroad    Co.,    5    Manitoba, 

195—1371. 
Shaw  V.   Seaboard  Air  Line  Ry.   143 

X.  C.  312—1669. 
Shaw    V.    South    Carolina    R.    Co.,    5 

Rich.  L.   (S.  C.)   462—260,  582. 
Shaw  V.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  E.  C. 

L.  347—150. 
Shav  V.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (X.  J.), 

49  Atl.  547—1494. 
Shea  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Minn. 

102—742,  748. 
Shea  V.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  25  St.  Rep. 

(X.  Y.)    33—1182. 
Shea  V.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 

Minn.    228—517,   576,   579,   642. 
Sheble    v.    Oregon    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    51 

Wash.  359—1368. 
Shedd  V.  Trov,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Vt.  88 

—1015,   1026. 
Sheehan   v.    Xassau   Electric    R.    Co., 

128  X\  Y.  Supp.  545 — 1622. 
Sheels  v.  Davies,  6  Taunt.  65 — 650. 
Shell'  V.  Huntington,  16  W.  Va.  317 — 

1544. 
Shelby  v.  Cincinnati,  e(tc.,  R.  Co.,  85 

Ky.  224-958. 
Shelby    V.    Guy,    11    Wheat.    (U.    S.) 

367—389. 
Shelby    v.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

141   App.  514—1172. 
Shelby   v.   Scotsford,   Yeber,   23 — 532. 
Shelby    v.    Wilmington,    etc.,    R.   Co., 

113  X.  C.  588—587. 
Shelbyville  R.  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc., 

R.    Co.,   82   Ky.   541—728. 
Sheldon   v.   Robinson,   7   X.   II 

11,  20,  62.  527. 
Sheldon  v.   Sherman    42  X.   Y. 

1122. 
Shellaborger   v.   Fisher,    143    Fed.   937 

—1095. 
Shellenberg  v.   Fremont,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

45  X^eb.  487 — 209,  210. 
Shellnut   v.   Central   of   Ga.    Co.,    131 

Ga.  404 — 116. 
Shelton  v.  Canadian  Xortliern  R.  Co.. 

189  Fed.  153—509,  953,  1070. 
Shelton  v.   Erie   R.   Co.,   73  N.   J.   L. 

58—1415. 
Shelton  v.  Tvouisville  &  X.  R.  Co.,  19 

Ky.   L.   Rep.   215 — 1655. 
Shelton      v.      Merchants' 

Transp.    Co.,    59    X.    Y. 

249,  452.  453.  550,  775. 
Shelton       v.       Merchants' 


157— 


48-1 


Despatch 
258—189, 


Dcrspatch 


CO  XXVI 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  refer encea  are   to  the  pages.). 


Transp.    e'o..    3G    N.    V.    Supor.    Ot. 
527—100,   1S8. 
i^heltou  V.   Railnvul  t'o..   2'.)  Ohio   St. 

•J14— 1415. 
Slie'.'ton  V.  SoutluMii   Ky.  Co.,  86  S.  C. 

OS— 14S2. 
Sheltoii  V.  St.  \jon\»  &■  S.   F.   R.  Co., 

131   Mo.  App.  500—888,  890. 
Slielton's  Adm'r  v.  Ijouisvillo  &  N.  R. 
Co.,    19   Ky.   Law    Rep.   215—1203. 
Shenandoah  Val.  R.  Co.  v.  Moose,  83 

Va.  827-1248.   1592. 
Shenk    v.    Philadelphia    Steam    Pro- 
pt-ller  Co.,  00  Pa.  St.  10!)— 234,  258, 
381,  .39!). 
Shepard  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  N. 

Y.  641—1104. 
Shepard   v.   Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   77 

Iowa,  54—1719. 
Shepherd    v.   Bristol.   et«.,   R.   Co.,   L. 

R.  3   Exch.  18!)— 386. 
Sheridan  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 
X.   Y.   39— 11S8.'  118!),    1219,    1271, 
1587.   1591.   15!)2,  ir)04.   1643. 
Sheridan  v.  New  Quay  Co.,  4  C.  B.  N. 

S.  618—530,  533. 
Sheridan  v.  New  Quav  Co.,  93  E.  0. 

L.  618—328. 

Sherlev    v.    Billings,    8    Bush     (Ky.), 

147—1212,    1131,   1147,    1187,   1713. 

Sherlock  v.  Ailing,  44  Ind.  184—1495. 

Sherman  v.   Chicago,  eitc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

Iowa,    45—999.    1027. 

Sherman  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72 

Mo.  62—988,  990,  1016,  1031,  1057, 

1066,  1286. 

Sherman  v.  Hudson  River  R    Co.,  64 

N.  Y.  2.54—258,  357,  384.  .596,  738. 

Sherman  v.  Inman  Steamship  Co.,  26 

Hun   (N.  Y.l,  107—341.  354.^ 
Sherman  v.   Pennsylvania  R.   Co.,  21 

Fed.  Cas.  No.  12769—369. 
Sherman   v.   Pullman   Co..    139   N.  Y. 

Supp.  51 — 1305. 
Sherman    v.    Southern    Pac.    Co.,    33 

Nev.  385 — 1502,  1504. 
Sherman  v.  Toronto,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34 

U.  C.  Q.  B.  451—958. 
Sherman  v.  Wells.  28  Barb.    (N.  Y.) 

403—38,   39,   581,   588. 
Sherman,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beebe    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  39  S.  W.  1102—781. 
Sherwood    v.    Railroad    Co.     (Mich.), 

46  N.  W.  776—12.33. 
Shewalter  v.   Missouri   Pac.  Ry.   Co., 
S4  Mn.  Apti.  .-.89-627.  751. 


Shidlovsky   v.  Miillory   S.   S.  Co.,   60 

M.isc.   Hep.  67—1917. 
Shieder  v.  Southi-rn  R.  Co.,  83  S.  C. 

45.'')— 622. 
Shiff  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

16  How.    (N.  Y.)    278—437,  781. 
Shiukle,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  76  Fed.  1007—1765. 
Ship   Howard    v.    Wissraan,    IS    How. 

U.  S.)    231—3.55. 
Shipton  V.  Thornton,  9  Ad.  &  El.  314 

—243. 
Shirley    v.    Billings,    8    Bush     (Ky.), 

147—1565. 
Shive   V.  Philadelphia  &  R.   Ry.   Co., 

235  Pa.  256—1635. 
Shoemaker    v.    Kingsbury,    12    Wall. 

(U.  S.)    369—43,  839,  1288. 
Shoptaugh   V.   St.   Louis   &   S-    F.   R. 

Co.,  147  Mo.  App.  8—136,  299. 
Short  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,   1  N. 

Dak.  164—1563. 
Short  V.   St.  Louis,   etc.,  R.  Co.,   150 

Mo.   App.    359—993,    1369,    1429. 
Shortsleeves  v.  Capital  Traction  Co., 

20  App.  D.  C.  365—1421. 
8hriver  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 
Minn.  506—456,  555,  566.  572,  576. 
778. 
Shuart  v.  Consol.  Traet.   Co.,   15  Pa. 

Super.  Ct.  26—1238. 
Shubrick  v.  Salmon^,  3  Burr,  1637— 

349. 
Shular  v.   St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92 

Mo.  339—1390. 
Shuler  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co..  81 

Va.  188—1027. 
Shiiltz  V.  Skaneateles  R.  Co..  66  Miec. 
Rep.    (N.  Y.)    9—190(5.   1926,   1927. 
,Shu!'tz  V.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  89  N.  Y. 

242—1155. 
Shultz  V.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  46  N.  Y. 

Super.  Ct.  211—1155. 
Shumate   v.   Louisville   &   N.   R.   Co., 

158— Fed.   901.    1655. 
Sias  v.  Rochester  R.   Co.,    169   N.  Y. 

118—1097. 
Sicard   v.   Buffalo,   etc.,   R.   Co..   Fed. 

Cas.  No.  12.831—664. 
Sickles   V.   Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    13 

T"x.  Civ.  App.  434—1661. 
Sidekum  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 

Mo.  400—1554. 
Siebrecht  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  21 

Misc.  R.   (N.  Y.)   61.5—315. 
Siegrist  v.  Arnot.  86  Mo.  200—1582. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages. )^ 


CCXXVU 


Siegri&t  v.  Arnot,  10  Mo.  App.  197 — 

945,  972. 
Siemonsma  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 

137  Iowa,  230,   139  N.  W.  1077— 

840,  897,   1811. 
Siemsen   v.  Oakland,  etc.,   Elec.   Ry., 

134  Cal.  494—1089. 
Siggins  V.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Co., 

153  Wis.    122—295. 
Sigl  V.  Green  Bay  Tr.  Co.,   149  Wis. 

112—1621. 
Silver  v.  Hale,  2  Mo.  App.  557—367. 
Silverman  v.   St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

51  La.  Ann.  1785—286,  334. 
Silverman  v.  Weir,   114  N.  Y.  Supp. 

6—1886. 
Simkins  v.   Steamboat  Co.,   11    Gush. 

(Mass.)   102—134. 
Simmes  v.  Marine  Ins.  Co.,  Fed.  Caa. 

No.  12,862   (2  Cranch.  C.  C.  618)  — 

660. 
Simmons  v.   Law,  3   Keyes    (N.  Y.), 

220—272. 
Simmons  v.  New  Bedford,  etc.,  S.  Co., 

97  Mass.  361—1131,   1187. 
Simmons  v.  Oregon  R.  &  Nav.  Co.,  41 

Or.     151—985,     1065,     1056,     1057, 

1066. 
Simmons   v.   Seaboard  Air   Line   Ry., 

133  Ga.  635 — 142. 
Simmons  Hardware  Co.  v.  St.  Louis, 

etc.,   Ry.  Co.,   140   Mo.  App.    130— 

442. 
Simms  v.  South  Carolina  R.   Co.,  27 

S.  C.  268—1245. 
Simon   v.    Dunlap's    Express    Co.,    38 

Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)   775 — 498. 
Simon  v.  Steamship  Fung  Shuey,  21 

La.  Ann.  363—134,  419. 
Simon    v.    The    Fung    Shuey.    21    La. 

Ann.   363—134. 
Simonin   v.   New   York,   etc..    R.    Co., 

36  Hun    (N.  Y.),  214 — 1156,   1166, 

1728. 
Simons  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  2  C. 

B,  N.  S.  620— 132,  438,  1855. 
Simons  v.  Great  We.stem  R.  Co.,   18 

C.  B.    805—466,    482,    14.55,    1457, 
1464. 

Simons  v.  Rhode  Island  Co.,  28  R.  I. 

186—1496. 
Simpson   v.   Dufour,    126    Ind.    322— 

37,  330. 


Simpson  v.  Hand,  6  Whart.  (Pa.j  311 

—27. 
Simpson  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Q. 

B.  Div.  274—624. 
Simpson  v.  Wrenn,  50  111.  222 — 531. 
Sims  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  65 

App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  270—1223,  1645. 
Siner  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

4  Exch.  117—1672. 
Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  London,  etc.,   R. 

Co.,   1   Q.  B.  833—1304. 
Singleton   v.   Hilliard,    1   Strobh.    (S. 

C.)    203—1452. 
Sinsabaugh  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

149  111.  App.  430—369,  596,  940. 
Sinsheimer  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Ck)., 

21  Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)   45—235. 
Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  First  Nat. 

Bank   of  "Fremont,    10   Neb.   556— 

218    '^'^8 
Sira  v."wabash  R.  Co.,  115  Mo.  127 

—1189,  1228,  1255. 
Sirk  v.  Marion  St.  R.  Co.,  39    (Ind.) 

N.  E.  421—1541. 
Sisson  V.   Cleveland,  eitc.,   R.   Co.,   14 

Mich.  489—456,  584,  585,  597,  736, 

838,  896. 
Skellie  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Ga. 

5g 352 

Skilling  V.  Bollman,  73  Mb.  665—231. 
Skilling  V.  Bollman,  6  Mo.  App.  676 

—231. 
Skinner  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 

Fed.  188—1201. 
Skinner   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    12 

Iowa,  191—273. 
Skinner  v.  Hall,  60  Me.  477—739. 
Skinner    v.    London,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    5 

Exoh.  787—985. 
Skinner  v.  Upshaw,  2  Ld.  Raym.  752 

—626,  642. 
Skinner  v.  Wilmington  &  W.  R.  Co., 

128  X.  C.  435—1208. 
Sk  otto  we  V.  Oregon  Short   Line,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  22  Or.  430—1556,   1608. 
Slater  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  2  Int. 

Com.  Rep.  243—1792,   1854. 
Slater   v.   South   Carolina   R.   Co.,   29 

S.  C.  96—310,  578. 
Slavdon-Kirkspy       Woolen       Mill      v. 

TTouHton  &  f.  C.  R.  Oo.    (Tex.  CSt. 

App.),   132  S.  W.  77—651. 
Sleade  v.  Payne,   14  La.  Ann.  467 — 

249,  258. 


CI- W  Mil 


TAHl-K  OF  CASES. 
(The   roliToiRis   are   to   the   pages.) 


Slmt   V.    I'agy.  .">    15.  A    AUl.  :MJ      If.t, 

5-27. 
t>loi>jHT   V.    IViinsylvtitua    U.    Co.,    100 

Pa.  St.  -if)'.*— 'JSo. 
Slim  V.  Grtiit  NortJu'in   K.  I  o.,   14  C. 

1{.   (547 — 104,  543.   847.    14ti4. 
summer  v.   Merry,   23   Iowa,  1)0 — .">», 

i)4o. 
Sloan    V.    Little    Kock    Ky..    etc..    Co., 

8!t  Ark.  574— lo02. 
Slojin    V.    St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   58 

Mo.  220 — 153,  551. 
Sloaue  V.  Southern  California  R.  Co., 
Ill     Cal.     068—1446,     1706,     1702. 
1716,  1712. 
Sloman  v.  Great  Wes.tern  R.  Co.,  67 

X.   Y.  208-1209.   1301,    1375. 
SkH)p  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  03  Mo.  App. 

605—598,  858. 
Sloop  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.   (I^lc.  App.), 

84  S.  W.  111—890. 
Slossen  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 

Iowa,  394—1541. 
Slv  V.   Union  Dopot  R.  Co.,    134   Mo. 

681—1589.   1618. 
Smallraan    v.    Whilter.    87    111.    545 — 

1(120,    1142.    1409. 
Smedlev   v.   Hestonville,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

184  Pa.  St.  620—1215,  1488. 
Smeed  v.  Ford,  1  El.  &  B.  602—616. 
Smeltzer    v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

168   Fed.   420—1926. 
Smelt7;er  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  158 
Fed.    649—1909,    1910,    1911.    1925. 
Smith   V.   Alabama.    124   U.   S.  465 — 

1230,   1891. 
Smitli     V.      American      Express      Co. 
108  Mich.  572,  66  N.  W.  479—456, 
493,  578,  767. 
Smith  V.   Atchison,   etc.,   R.  Co.,    194 

Fed.  79—953,  1471. 
Smith  V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

5  Ga.  App.  219—1531. 
Smith  V.  Booth.   122  Fed.   026—2035. 
Smith   V.   Boston    &    M.    R.    Co.,    120 

Ma.ss.  490—1600. 
Smith   V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  44  N. 

H.  .325—1300,  1301,  1302. 
Smith  V.  Boston,  eitc,  R.  Co.,  41  Miss. 

671—1302. 
Smith  V.  British,  eitc..  Steam  Packet 
Co.,  86  N.  Y.  408—1130.  1262.  1272. 
Smith  V.  British,  etc..  Packet  Co..  40 

N.   Y.   Super.   Ct.   86—1505. 
Smith  V.  Britain   S.  S.    (U.   S.  D.  C. 
V.  Y.)     123  Fed.  176—205. 


>Miiilli    V.    llrookiyu    Heights    R.    Co., 

129    App.    l>iv.    (N.   Y.)    635—1611. 

Smith      V.     Canadian     Pac.     R.     Co. 

(Can.),  34  N.  S.  22—69.  _ 

Sinitli  V.  Chamberlain    (S.  C.),   17   S. 

K.   371  —  1143. 
Smith    V.   Chiingo   City    Ry.    Co.,    169 

111.  App.  570—1584. 
Smith     V.     Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    55 

Iowa,  33—1602. 
Smith    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    108 

Mo.  243—1213.   1220. 
Smith  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  4   S. 

D.  80—1544. 
Smith    V.    Cincinnati,   eftc.,    R.    Co.,    3 

Ohio  Dih;.   192—1297. 
Smith  V.  Citv  &  S.  R.  Co.,  29  Or.  539 

—997,   1002.   1013. 
Smith    V.    Clevdand,   etc..   R.    Co.,   92 

Ga.  539—343. 
Smith   V.   Eastern    R.   Co.,   35   N.   H. 

356—1544. 
Smith  V.  Finley,  34  Kan.  316—436. 
Smith  V.  Georgia  Pac.  R.  Co.,  88  Ala. 

538—1220.    1233,    1073. 
Smith  V.  Griflith,  3  Hill   (N.  Y.),  333 

—584,  592. 
Smith  V.  Gulf,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  128  S.  W.  1177—1604. 
Smith  V.  Horn,  8  Taut.  144—430,  464. 
Smith  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  23  Pa. 

Super.  Ct.  04.3—296. 
Smith    V.    Kingston    City    R.    Co.,   55 

App.  Div.   (X.  Y.)    143—1092. 
Smith   V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   124 

Ind.  394—1058. 
Smith   V.   Louisville,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   95 

Ky.  11—1425. 
Smith  V.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  138  N.  Y. 

02.3—1426. 
Sn  ith  V.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  18  N.  Y. 

Supp.  759 — 1171. 
Smith  V.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y. 

St.  R.  80.5—1072,  1156. 
Smith  V.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  59 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)   60—1116. 
Smith  V.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,   100 

Mich.  148-785.  815. 
Smith  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Mo. 

App.  80—774. 
Smith  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  74  Mo. 

App.  48—228. 
Smith  V.  Nashua,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  N. 

H.  84-190,  234.  383.  412. 
Smith  V.  New  Haven,  etc..  R.  Co..  12 
Allen  (Mass.),  531—31,  597,  793. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


CCXXIX 


Smith  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  41 

N.  Y.  620—746,  747,  748,  749,  750. 

Smith  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24 

N.  Y.  222—6,  467,  1036,  1052,  1449, 

1461,  1467. 

Smith  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  43 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    225—568,  777. 
Smith  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  29 
Barb.     (N.    Y.)     132—1460,     1461, 
1463. 
Smith   V.  New  York,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  46 

N.  J.  L.  7—998. 
Smith  V.  New  York,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   19 

N.  Y.  127—1083,  1114.  1121. 
Smith   V.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   6 

Duer.    (N.  Y.)    231—1106. 
Smith  V.  Norfolk  &  S.  R.  Co.,  114  N. 

C.  728—1595. 
Smith  V.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  W. 

Va.  69—1167. 
Smith  V.   North   Carolina  R.   Co..   64 
N.  C.  235—428,  457,  576,  579,  1452, 
1453. 
Smith  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  1  Int. 

Com.  Rep.  208—1854. 
Smith  V.  North  German  Llovd  S.   S. 

Co.,  142  Fed.  1032—2039.  ' 
Smith    V.    Pierce,    1    La.    349—52,    54, 

75. 
Smith  V.   Pittsburgii,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 

Ohio  St.  11—1711,  1712. 
Smith    V.    Pullman    Palace    Car    Co. 

(Can.),  60  Alb.  L.  J.  188—64. 
Smith   V.   Richmond,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   99 

N.  C.  241—1626. 
Smith   V.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   100 

Ga.  96—1425. 
Smith   V.   Seaboard   Air  Line  Co.,    10 

Ga.  App.  227—928.  1024. 
Smith   V.   Seward,  3  Pa.  St.  342—59, 

290. 
Smith   V.   Southern   Express   Co.,    104 

Ala.  387—264,  452. 
Smitli  V.   Southern   R.   Co.,   88   S.   C. 

421—1417. 
Smith  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  80  S.  C  1 

—1682. 
Smith    V.    St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   69 

Mo.  ,32—1213. 
Smith   V.   St.   Louis  Transit  Co.,    120 

Mo.  App.  328-1088. 
Smith    V.    St.    Paul    City   R.    Co.,    32 
Minn.   1—570,  973,  975.  987,   1080. 
1098,  1404. 
Smith    V.    St.    Paul,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    .'^O 
Minn.   169—1703. 


Smith  V.  Western  R.  Co.,  91  Ala.  455 

—311. 
Smith  V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  83 

Ky.  104—88,  91. 
Smith  V.  Whitman,  13  Mo.  352—134, 

600. 
Smitha  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86 

Tenn.   198—487,  881. 
Smithers  v.  Wilmington  City  Ry.  Co., 

6  Pen.    (Del.)   422—1492. 
Smitson    v.     Southern    Pac.    R.     Co. 

(Or.).  60  Pac.  910—1226. 
Smotherman  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 

29  Mo.  App.  265—1638. 
Smyrl  v.  Niolon,  2  Bailey  L.   (S.  C. ) 

421—27. 
Smyth  v.  Ames,   171  U.   S.  361—162. 
Smyth  V.  Ames,   169  U.  S.  466— 16-:£, 

1762,  1794. 
Snead  v.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.,  151 

Fed.  608—1736. 
Snediker  v.  Nassau   Elec.   R.   Co.,   41 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   628—1124. 
Snelling  v.  Yetter.  25  App.  Div.    (N. 

Y.)   590—83,  388. 
Snider  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  63  Mo 

376—425,  4.30,  431,  457,  754. 
Snider   v.   Hannibal,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   60 

Mo.  413—988. 
Snipes   v.   Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    144 

N.   C.   18—981. 
Snow  V.  Carruth,   1  S.  P.  R.    (U.  S  ) 

324—163.  650. 
Snow  v.  Caruth,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13.144 

—189. 
Snow  V.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  136  Mass 

552—1204. 
Snow  V.  Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  Ind 

422—486,  638,  735,  751. 
Snowden   v.  Boston,  etc..  R.  Co.,   151 

Mass.  220—1662. 
Snowdon    v.    Davis,    1    Taunt.    359 — 

165. 
Snvder  v.  Natchez,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  La 

Ann.  302—959. 
Sodow.sky     v.     McFarland,     3     Dana 

(Ky.),  20.5—5. 
Sohen    v.    Hume,    1    M'eCord    (S.    C  ) 

444—59. 
Solan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Iowa) 

63  N.  W.  692—1450. 
Solarz  v.  ^lanhattan   R.   Co.,  8  Mi.sc 

R.    (N.  Y.)    850—1509. 
Soloman    v.    Adams    Express    Co      47 

Pii.   SupfT.   Ct.  42.3-288. 
Solnnuui   v.   Pliiladelphia,  etc..  Steam- 


fCXXX 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The    roforenci's   are    to    tho    pages.) 


boat   Co..   '2    Dalv     (N.    Y.),    104— 

:<84.  394.  ;{00. 
Solomon  v.  Central  Park.  etc..  U.  Co., 

;U    N.  Y.   Super.   Ct.    138—1(543.^ 
Solomon  v.  Central  Turk.  etc..  R.  Co., 

1  Sweeny   (N.  Y.).  298—1588. 
St^lomon  V.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  103  N. 

Y.  437—1613.   1C>75. 
<omnierfield  v.  St.  Louis  Transit  Co., 

108  .Mo.  App.  718,  1392. 
Soiiia  (\itton  Oil  Co.  v.  The  Red  River, 

lOU  La.  42—340. 
Sonicr    v.    Boston,    ete..    R.    Co.,    141 

Mass.   10—1242. 
Sonn  V.  Smith,  57  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.) 

372—233. 
Sorenson  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  155 

111.   App.   606—994. 
Sornes    v.    British    Empire    Shipping 

Co.,  8  H.  L.  Cas.  338—629,  645. 
South  &  N.  A.  R.  Co.  V.  Henlein,  56 

Ala.  368—681,  1457. 
South  &  N.  A.  R.  Co.  V.  Ilenlein,  52 

Ala.    606—33,   418,    492,    516,    523, 

787,  815,  821,  1456. 
South  &  N.  A.  R.  Co.  V.  Wood,  66  Ala. 

167—23,  196. 
Southard  v.  Minneapolis,  etc..  R.  Co., 

tiO  Minn.  382—439,  441,  579,  776. 
South  Carolina  R.  Co.  v.  Bradford,  10 

Rich.  L.    (S.  C.)    307—747,  748. 
South  Carolina  R.  Co.  v.  Nix,  68  Ga. 

572—1445. 
South    Chicago   City   R.    Co.    v.    Du- 

fresne,   102   111.  App.  493—1015. 
Southcote's  Case.  4  Coke,  84 — 430. 
South  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barr, 

147  Ky.  549—1093. 
South  Covington,   etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Be- 

atty,  20  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1845—1003. 
South  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cove, 

29  Ky.  Law  Rep.  836—1069. 
South  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cnit- 

cher,  135  Ky.  698—1586. 
.South  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hardy 

(Ky.).  153  S.  W.  474—1653. 
South  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith, 

3  St.  Ky.  Rep-  264  (Ky.)— 1108. 
South  CoTington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ware, 

84  Ky.  267—1580. 
South    Eastern    R.    Co.    v.    Railway 

Com'rs  41  L.  T.  N.  S.  760—158. 
South    Ea.stern    R.    Co.    v.    Railway 
'  Com'rs,  5  Q.  B.  Div.  217—150. 


Southeastern    R.    Co.    v.    Soutliworth, 

135   111.  250—1554. 
Souther  v.  San  Diego  Flume  Co.,  121 

Fed.  347—111. 
Southerland  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R. 

Co.,   158  N.  C.  327-885. 
Southerland   v.   Peoria  Bank,  78   Ky. 

250—242. 
Southern   Alabama  Rv.  Co.  v.   W.  C. 

Maddox  &    Son.    14(5  Ala.  539—726. 
Southern  Building  &  L.  Assoc,  v.  Nor- 
man, 98  Ky.  294—1735. 
Southern,   etc.,    Ass'n   v.    Lawson,    97 

Tenn.   367—102. 
Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rioe,  38  Kan. 

398—1187. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Armstead,  50 

Ala.  350—254,  426. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Ashford,  126 

Ala.   591—273,   857,  941. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Bailey,  7  Ga. 

App.  331—337. 
Southern   Express  Co.   v.   Barnes,   36 

Ga.  5,32—418,  433. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Briggs,  1  Ga. 

App.  294—512,  .596. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Caldwell,  21 

Wall.  (U.  S.)  264—88,  91,  478,  481, 

1457. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Caperton,  44 

Ala.  101—426,  477,  1457. 
Southern    Express    Co.    v.    Crook,    44 

Ala.    468—38,    418,   426,    526,    527, 

1451,  1453,  1457. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Dickson,  94 

U.  S.   (4  Otto)   549—208,  245. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Everett,   37 

Ga.   688—207. 
Southern    Express   Co.   v.    Fant   Fish 

Co.   (Ga.  App.),  78  S.  E.  197—335, 

629.  654. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Fox  &  Logan, 

131  Ky.  257—507,  827,  862. 
Southern   Express   Co.   v.   Gibbs,    155 

Ala.  303—511. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Glenn,  16  Lea 

(Tenn.),   472—38,   325,   481. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Hanaw,   134 

Ga.  44.5—474,  512,  596,  607. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Hess,  53  Ala. 

19—38. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Hill,  8  Ark. 

1—442. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Holland.  109 

Ala.  362—254,  384,  392. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are  to   the   pages.) 


CCCQ3D 


Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Hunnicut,  54 

Miss.  566 — 481. 
Southern  Express   Co.   v.   Jacobs,   109 

Va.  27—870. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Jasper  Trust 

Co.,  99  Ala.   416—179. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Kaufman,  59 

Tenn.     (12    Heisk.)     161—36,    198, 

237,  381,  559. 
Southern   Express  Co.  v.  Keeler,   109 

Va.  459—510. 
Southern  Express  Co.  y.  McVeigh,  20 

Gratt.    (Va.)    264—39,  377. 
Southern   Express   Co.   v.  Meyer   Co., 

94  Ark.    103—1924. 
Southern   Express    Co.    v.     Moon,   39 

Miss.    822—27,    41,    117,    118,    430, 

456,  495.   1450. 
Southern    Express   Co.   v.   Newby,   36 

Ga.    635—38,    168,    187,    425,    433, 

1452. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Oskamp,   14 

Ohio  C.  C.  176—237. 
Southern   Express   Co.   v.   Palmer,  48 

Ga.  85—284,  771. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Raraey,   164 

Ala.  206.  51  So.  314—38,  872. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Rose,  124  Ga. 

581—116,  129. 
Southern    Express    Co.    v.    Seide,    67 

Miss.  613—576 — 495. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Shea,  38  Ga. 

519—743. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Sinclair,  130 

Ga.  372—275. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Sottile  Bros., 

134  Ga.  40—328,  329. 
Southern    Express    Co.    v.    Stevenson, 

42  So.  070—509. 
Southern    Express   Co.   v.    St.    Louis, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    5    Myers    Fed.    Dec., 

§   1511—116. 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  10  Fed.  210,  869—38,  676. 
Soutlu-rn  Express  Co.  v.  Thornton,  41 

Miss.  216—41. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Tupleo  Bank, 

lOH  Ala.  .'in— 482. 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Williams,  99 

Ga.  482—238. 
Southern    Express  Co.   v.   Womack,    1 

TToiak.    (Tenn.)    2.56—38,  325,  458. 
Soutliern     Indiana     Express     Co.     v. 

ITnited    States    Exp.    Co.,    92    Fed. 

1022—685,  1776. 


Southern     Indiana     Express     Co.,     2 

United  Express  Co.,  88  Fed.  659— 

1822,  1826. 
Southern  Indiana  R.  Co.  v.  Messick. 

35  Ind.  App.  676—1062. 
Southern  Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Burgess  ><; 

Co.   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  90  S.  W.  18<* 

— 479,  680,  688,  808. 
Southern  Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  52 

Kan.  398—1298. 
Southern  Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Cox   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  103  S.  W.  1122—143. 
Southern    Kansas    R.    Co.    v.    Crumj) 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  74  S.  W.  335— 

858. 
Southern    Kansas    R.    Co.    v.    Curtis 

Bros.    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),  99  S.  \V. 

566—886. 
Southern   Kansas   R.   Co.  v.   Duncan. 

40  Kan.  503—729,  751,  782. 
Southern  Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Hinsdale, 

38    Kan.     507—1070,     1148,     1181. 

1423,  1424,  1719. 
Southern  Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Morris, 

100  Tex.  611—929. 
Southern  Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Morris 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  99  S.  W.  433— 

842. 
Southern  Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  O'Lough- 

lin  Land  &  C.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

127  S.  W.  568—868. 
Southern  Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Pavey.  4? 

Kan.  452—1673. 
Southern  Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Rice.   38 

Kan.    ,398—1147. 
Southern  Kansas  Ry.  Co.  v.  Samples 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),'  109  S.  W.  417— 

605,  790. 
Southern  Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Walsh,  45 

Kan.   6.53—1083,   1215.    1500.   1715, 

1717. 
Southern    Nursery    Co.    v.    Winfield 

Nursery  Co.,  89  Kan.  522 — 500. 
Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Arnett,  126  Fed 

7.5—835.  8.53. 
Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Blake  (Tex.  Civ 

App.),  128  S.  W.  668-1,502. 
Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Calvin,  144  Fed 

348—1050. 
Soutliern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Crenshaw  Bros., 

5  Ga.  App.  67.5—1925. 
Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  D'.Arcais  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  64  R.  W.  813 — 495,  583. 
Southern  Pae.  R.  Co.  v.  Haas  (Supp  ) 

17  S.  W.  600—1857.  ' 


ecxxxii 


lAHLE  OF  CASES. 
(The    it'fironcfs   ure    to    tlii'    pagos.) 


Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  lli'j;:iii.   l.S  Ari/.. 

34—1502. 
Soutlioni  Pac.  Vo.  v.   Intoixtatp  I'oni- 

meroe  Couunission.  200  I".  S.  r>3(» — 

1840. 
Southern  Pae.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Com- 

meree  Commission,    ISS   Fed.  241 — ■ 

1844. 
Southern  Pae.  Co.  v.  Laialiee,  S!)  Kan. 

G08— li83. 
Southern  Pae.  Co.  v.  Meailors  &  Co., 

104  Tex.  460—872.  Ol.*^. 
Southern   Pac.   Co.  v.   Meadors  &  Co. 

(Te.\.  Civ.  App.).  120  S.  W.  170— 

913,    1007,    1020.    1024.    1076. 
Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Redding.  17  Tox, 

Civ.  App.  440—003,  1847. 
Southern    Pac.    Co.    v.    Schuyler,    227 

U.  S.  001—1051. 
Southern   Pac.   Co.   v.   United   States, 

197  Fed.  167—1874. 
Southern    Pac.   Co.   v.   United   States, 

171  Fed.  360—810. 
Southern     Pac.     Co.    v.    Wcatherford 

Cotton  Mills   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  134 

5.  W.  778—1006,  1010,  1024. 
Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson.  26 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  518.  63  S.  W.   1023 

— 450,  405,  589,  936. 
Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Booth    (Tex, 

Civ.  App.),  30  S.  W.  585—278,  752. 
Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Colorado  Fuel 

6.  Iron    Co..    101    Fed.    770—1760, 
1876. 

Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hamilton.  54 

Fed.  408—1183. 
Southern    Pac.    R.    Co.     v.     Interstate 

Com.  Com.,  200  U.  S.  536—1772. 
Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson  (Tex. 

App.),   15   S.  W.   121—300. 
Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Lyon  &  Co., 

99  Miss.  186—1019,  1924. 
Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Maddox.  75 

Tex.   300 — 4.53,   516.   585. 
Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Rauh,  49  Fed. 

606—1716,  1728. 
Southern  Pac.  Term.  Co.  v.  Interstate 

Com.  Com.,  210  U.  S.  498—1810. 
Southern  Rv.  &  Timber  Co.  v.  Great 

Northern 'Rv.  Co.,  58  Wash.  604— 

665. 
Southern  Rv.  Co.  v.  Axiams,   115  Ga. 

705— 880." 
Southern    Rv.   Co.    v.    Adams    (Ind.), 

100  X.  F.' 77.3—1 .503. 


Southern  Rv.  Co.  v.  Adams  Macli.  Co., 

16.-)   Ala.'43(; — 114. 
Soutliern   Ry.  Co.  v.   .Mlisun.    ll.">  <!a. 

635—190. 
Soutliern    Rv.  Co.   v.    .\nnistoii    Foun- 
dry   &    Mach.    Co.,    135    Ala.    31.5— 

Kit;.  ()59,  714. 
Southern    R.   Co.   v.    Atlanta    Sand   & 

Supply  Co.,  135  Ga.  35—136. 
Southern   Ry.  Co.  v.  Railey   Hros.,  26 

Ky.   Law    Reji.   53 — 835. 
Soutliern   Ry.  Co.  v.  Bandy,   120  Ga. 

403—1576. 
Southern   Ry.  Co.  v.  Barclay,   1   Ala. 

App.  348—200. 
Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Barlow,  104  Ga. 

213—306. 
Soutliern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Bickley,  McClure 

&  Co.,   110  Tenn.  528—1348. 
Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Born  Steel  Range 

Co.,  126  Ga.  527—652,  693. 
Southern   Ry.   Co.  v.   Brewer,  32   Ky. 

Law  Rep.'  1374—1484. 
Southern  Rv.  Co.  v.  Brewer,  32  Ky.  L. 

R.   4.3—1407. 
Southern  Rv.  Co.  v.  Bunnell,  138  Ala. 

247—1390. 
Southern    Ry.    Co.   v.    Burnett    (Ala. 

App.)   60  So.  472—1004. 
Southern    Ry.    Co.    v.    Coleman,    153 

Ala.  266—604,  609. 
Southern     Ry.    Co.    v.    Crone     (Ind. 

App.),  99  N.  E.  762—1175. 
Southern    R.    Co.   v.   Cullen,   221    111. 

392—1036. 
Southern    Rv.    Co.    v.    Deakins.    107 

Tenn.  522—367,  602. 
Southern    Rv.    Co.    v.    Decker,    5    Ga. 

App.  21—1472. 
Southern  Rv.  Co.  v.  De  Saussure,  116 

Ga.  53—1300. 
Soutliern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co., 

6  Allen  (Mass.)  2.54—739. 
Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Flanegan,  10  Ga. 

App.  74.5—1440. 
Southern  Rv.  Co.  v.  Fleming,  128  Ga. 

241—1.30,5. 
Soutliern    Rv.    Co.    v.    Foster     (Ala. 

App.),  60  So.  00.3—1382. 
Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Gardner,  127  Ga. 

320—335. 
Southern   Ry.  Co.  v.   Graddy,  33   Ky. 

Law  Rep.   183—862. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


CCXXXIH 


Southern  Rv.  Co.  v.  Harrington,   166 

Ala.  630—1051,  1111,   1695. 
Southern    Rv.    Co.   v.    Hevmann,    118 

Ca.   616—328. 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Hunter,  74  Miss. 

444—1425. 
Southern  Rv.  Co.  v.  Jones,   132  Ala. 

437—891.' 
Southern  Rv.  Co.  v.  Jones.  8  Ga.  App. 

225—1390.    1395. 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Kendrick,  40  Miss. 

374—1213,   1237,   1256,   1514.   1553. 

1723,  1727. 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Kinchen,   103  Ga. 

186—236,  265. 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Lanning    (Miss.), 

35   So.   417—1709. 
Southern  Rv.  v.  Lee,  30  Kv.  Law  Rep. 

1360—996. 
Southern   Rv.  Co.  v.  Lewis,   165  Ala. 

451— 606,"  620,  622. 
Southern   Rv.   Co.  v.  Lockwood   Mfg. 

Co.,  142  Ala.  322—643,  703. 
Southern   Rv.   Co.  v.   Lowe,   170   Ala. 

598—722.' 
Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Marshall,  23  Kv. 

L.  Rep.  813—1708. 
Southern    Ry.    Co.    v.    Mather — ilc- 

Dowell  Lumber  Co.   (Miss.),  60  So. 

42—140. 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  McElvein,  109  Ga. 

249—741. 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  McVeigh,  20  Gratt. 

(Va.)   264—175. 
Southern  Rv.  Co.  v.  Moody,  169  Ala. 

292—346,'  607. 
Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Moody,  151  Ala. 

374 — 607. 
Southern   Rv.  Co.  v.  Moore,   133   Ga. 

806— 142,' 303. 
Southern   Ry.  Co.  v.  Mullen,   122   111. 

App.  29.3—1039. 
Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Nappier,  138  Ga. 

31—110. 
Southern  Rv.  Co.  v.  Nichols,  135  Ga. 

11-1622.' 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  O'Brvan,   115  Ga. 

6.'')9— 1225. 
Soutlicrn    Ry.   Co.   v.   Proctor,   3    Ala. 

App.   413—814,   874. 
Southern    Ry.    Co.   v.    Railroad    Com- 
mission  of  Alabama.    196    Fed.   55S 

—721. 
Sonthnrn   Rv.  Co.  v.  Rhodes,  86   Va]. 

422—1204. 


Southern    R.    Co.   v.    Roach,    38    Ind. 

App.  211—1037. 
Southern  R.   Co.   v.   Roebuck    (Ala.), 

31  So.  611—1576. 
Southern  Rv.  Co.  v.  Rosenheim  Bros., 

1  Ga.  App.  766—1358,  1373. 
Southern   Rv.    Co.   v.   Samples    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.'),   109  S.  W.  417—868. 
Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Schlittler,  1  Ga. 

App.  20—720,   721. 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Skinner,   133  Ga. 

33—995. 
Southern   Ry.   Co.   v.   Smith,    86   Fed. 

292—1018. 
Southern     Ry.    Co.     in    Kentuckv    v. 

Smith,  31   Ky.  Law  Rep.  243—308, 

375. 
Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Hay  & 

Gr.  Co.,  214  U.  S.  297 — 654. 
Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Hav  & 

Grain  Co.,  153  Fed.  728—1804.  " 
Southern   Ry.   Co.   v.   Tift,   206   U.   S. 

428— 655,' 656,   712. 
Southern    Ry.    Co.    v.   Tift,    148    Fed. 

1021—711. 
Southern    Ry.    Co.    v,    ToUerson,    135 

Ga.  74—817,  917. 
Soutliern    Rv.    Co.    v.    Tollerson     129 

Ga.  647—883. 
Southern     Ry.     Co.     v.     Vandergriff 

(Tenn.),  64  S.  W.  481—1221. 
Southern  Ry.   Co.  v.  Wallace,  56   So. 

714—913,  937,  939. 
Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Watson,  110  Ga. 

081—1458. 
Southern    Ry.   Co.  v.   Webb,   148  Ala. 

661—849. 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  White  (Miss.),  33 

So.  970—1709. 
Southern    Ry.    Co.    v.    Wideman.    119 

.\la.   5{)'> — 1175. 
Southern    Ry.   Co.   v.   WiIoo.x,   99   Va 

394—146.    154,    155. 
Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Williams.  139  Ga 

357—566. 
Southern       Ry.      Co.      v.      Williams 

(Miss.),  36  So.  394—1608. 
Southern    Towing    Co.    v.    Egan,    184 

Ftxi.  275—55. 
South,   etc.,   Alabama  R.  Co.  v.  Hen- 
bin.   56   Ala.   308 — 681,    1457. 
Soutl),  etc.,   ,\Iabama  R.   Co.   v.   Hen- 

lein.  52  Abi.  606—33,  418,  492   616 
523,   787,   815,   821,    1456. 


ccxxxiv 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


South,  etc..  Alabama  R.  Co.  v.  Jones. 

.^G  Ahi.  507— ;'>nO. 
South,  el-e.,  AlaUaina  H.  Co.  v.  Sehau- 

Hor,  75  Ala.  14-2—1576,  1679. 
South,   et-c..   Alabama    K.   eo.    v.    Wil 

son,  78  Ala.  587 — i59. 
South,  etc..  Alabama  K.  Co.  v.  Wood. 

72   Ala.   451— '2:W,  582,   584. 
South,  etc..  Alabama  R.  Co.  v.  Wood, 
tiC.    Ala.    167—235,    252,    255,    384, 
404,  488,  570,  585. 
South'  Florida  R.  Co.   v.  Rhodes,  25 

Fla.  40—1068.   1429. 
Southwestern    Alabama    Ry.    Co.    v. 
Maddox  &  Son.  146  Ala.  539—714. 
Southwestern  R.  Co.  v.  Bently,  51  Ga. 

311—1304,   1344. 
Southwestern  R.  Co.  v.  Felder,  46  Ga. 

433 — 380. 
Southwestern  R.  Co.  v.  Montgomery, 

66  Ga.  252—1040. 
South   Western    R.   Co.   v.   Paulk,  24 

Ga.  366—1581. 
Southwestern  R.  Co.  v.  Singleton,  67 

Ga.  300-1475. 
Southwestern  R.  Co.  v.  Singleton,  66 

Ga.  2.52—1021,  1680. 
Southwestern  R.  Co.  v.  Webb,  48  Ala. 

585—41,  175,  181. 
Southwestern  Telegraph  &  Telephone 
Co.  V.  Danaher    (Ark.),   144  S.  W. 
925 — 94. 
Soviero  v.  Westcott  Express  Co.,  47 
Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  596—1334,1346, 
1367. 
Spade   V.    Hudson    River    R.    Co.,    16 

Barb.   (N.  Y.)   383—183. 
Spade  V.  Lvnn  &  B.  R.  R.,  172  Mass. 

488—1194,  1251. 
Spaids  V.  New  York,  etc..  Steamship 

Co.,  3  Daly  (N.  Y.)   139—324. 
Spalding  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101 

Mo.  App.  22.5—607,  836,  937. 
Spangler  v.  St.  Josephs,  etc.,  Ry.  Co. 

(Kan.),  74  Pac.  607—1192. 
Spann  v.  Erie  Boatman's  Transp.  Co., 
11  Misc.  R.   (N.  Y.)   680—152,  368, 
611. 
Spannagle  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31 
111.   App.   460—946,   972,   974,   985, 
989,  1613. 
Spaulding   v.    Quincy    k   B.    St.    Ry. 

Co.,  184  Mass.  470—1680. 
Spear    v.   Philadelphia,   etc.,   R.    Co., 
119  Pa.  St.  61—1505. 


Smears  V.  Hartley,  3  Eftp.  81—16. 
Spi^^rs  V.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Oo.,  6i 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  513- -9. 
Spears    v.    Spartanburg,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

11  S.  C.  158—385,  397. 
Speck  V.  Northern  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,   108 

Mimi.  435,  1688. 
Speigel  V.  Pacilic  Mail  Steamship  Co., 

26  Misc.  R.   (N.  Y.)   414—328. 
Spellman  v.  Lincoln   Rap.  T.  Co.,  36 
Neb.   890—45,  90,  945,   1213,   1475, 
1500,   1646. 
Spellman  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3) 

S.   C.  475-1020,   1726. 
Spenc<;  v.   Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co.,    117 

Iowa,   1—1040. 
Spence  v.  Chodwick,  69  E.  C.  L.  517 

—145. 
Spence  v.  Mi'tchell,  9  Ala.  744—531. 
Spence   v.   Norfolk,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    92 

Va.   102—294,  342. 
Spencer  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  54 

N.  Y.  230—1628. 
Spencer  v.  Daggett,  2  Vt.  92—53. 
Spencer  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 

Wis.  487—1656. 
Spencer  v.  St.  I^ouis  Tr.  Co.,  Ill  Mo. 

App.  653—983,  1619. 
Spencer   v.   Wabash   R.   Co.,   36   App. 

Div.    (N.    Y.),    466—1371,    1376. 
Spencer  v.  White,  2.3  N.  C.   (1  Ired.) 

236—672. 
Sperry   v.    Consolidated   Ry.    Co.,    79 

Conn.  565—1383. 
Spettigue   v.    Great   Western   R.   Co., 

15  U.  C.  C.  P.  315—466. 
Speyer  v.  The  Mary  Belle  Roberts,  2 

Sawy.   (U.  S.)    1—575. 
Spicer    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Oo.,    29 
Wis.   580—1702,    1715,    1716,   1723. 
Spinetti  v.   Atlas   Steamship   Co.,   80 

N.  Y.  71—519. 
Spinney  v.  Boston  Eleiv.  R.  Co.,   188 

Mass.  30—1134. 
S.  P.  Moseley  v.  Lord,  2  Conn.  389 — 

265. 
SpofTord  V.   Pennsylvania  R.   Co..    11 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  97—339. 
Spohn   V.   Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co..    116 

Mo.  617—1718. 
Spohn   V.   Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.,    101 

Mo.  417—1190. 
Spohn  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  87  Mo. 

74—1186,  1190. 
Spokane  Grain  Co.  v.  Great  Northern 
Impress  Co.,  55  Wash.  545—850. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CCXXXV 


(The  references   are   to  the   pages.) 


Spooner  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 

.vlo.  App.  403—1300. 
Spooner  v.  Manchester,  133  Mass.  270 

—276,  285. 
Sprague  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.   Co.,  34 

Kan.  347 — 455,  481,   880,   1456. 
Sprague  v.   New  York   C«nt.   R.   Co., 

52  N.  Y.  637—384,   732. 
Sprague  v.  Smith,  29  Vt.  421—46,  47, 

48,  740. 
Sprague  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  63  U.  S. 

App.  711—1264. 
Spriggs  Admr.  v.  Rutland  R.  Co.,  77 

Vt.  347—931,  1037. 
Spring   V.   Haskill,   4   Allen    (Mass.), 

112 589    597 

Springer  v!   Ford,   189  111.   430—103, 

945. 
Springer   v.    Sohultz,    205    111.    144 — 

102,  1475. 
Springer  v.  Schultz,  105  111.  App.  544 

—102. 
Springer  v.  Wes-tcott,   166  N.  Y.   117 

—426,   542,   1365. 
Springfield   Consol.   R.   Co.  v.   Flynn, 

55  111.  App.  600—1166,  1187. 
Springfield  Consol.  R.  Go.  v.  Hoefifner, 

175  111.  634—1239,   1561. 
Springfield  Consol.  R.  Co.  v.  Punten- 

ney,  101  111.  App.  95—1563. 
Springfield   Consol.   R.   Co.  v.   Welsh, 

135  111.  511—1562. 
.Springer    Transp.    Co.    v.    Smith,    16 

Lea      (Tenn.),      498—1150,      1167, 

1726. 
Springs  v.  South  Bend  R.  Co.,  46  S. 

C.  104—390,  451,  458. 
Sproat  V.  Donnell,  26   Me.   185 — 553. 
Sproul     V.      Hemingway,      14      Pick. 

(Mass.)    1 — 57. 
Sproule    V.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  91   S.  W.  657— 

1050. 
Sprowl  V.  Kellar,  4  Stew.  *  P.  (Ala.) 

382—76. 
Spurlock  V.  Missouri  Pa«.  R.  (Do.,  93 

Mo.  530—156. 
Spurlock    V.    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  90  S.  W.  1124— 

652,  703. 
Spurlock  V.  Shreveport  Traction  Co., 

118  I^.   1—1493. 
Spurrier    v.     Front     St.     Cable     Co. 

fWa.sh.),  29  Pac.  346-1544. 
Squiro  v.   Central   Park,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

36  X.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  436—1543,  1589. 


Squire   v.   Michigan   C«nt.   R.   Co.,   4 

Int.  Com.  C.  Rep.  611—1781. 
Squire   v.   Michigan    C^nt.   R.   Co.,   3 

Int.  Com.  Rep.  515—1782. 
Squire  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  98 

Mass.  239—452,  453,  493,  805,  822, 

894,  1456,  1458. 
Stadhecker  v.  Combes,  9  Rich.  L.   (S. 

C.)    193—38. 
Stafskv  V.   Southern  Ry.  Co.    (Ala.), 

39  So.  132—287. 
Stager  v.   Ridge  Ave.   P.   R.   Co.,   119 

Pa.  St.  70—1224,  1477.  1489,   1615, 

1616. 
Stahl  v.  The  Niagara.  84  Fed.  902— 

2001. 
Staines  v.  Central  R.  Co.  of  N.  J.,  72 

N.  J.  L.  268—1251. 
Stalcup  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 

Ind.   App.   584 — 1058. 
Stanbridge  v.  Nassau  Ele<?tric  R.  Co., 

135  App.  Div.  38—1498. 
Standard  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  Cum- 
berland Valley  R.  Co.,   15  I.  C.  C. 

Rep.  620—116,   118,  122,  124. 
Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  Tierney,  92  Ky. 

367—563. 
Standard   Oil   Co.   v.   Tierney    (Ky.), 

27  S.  W.  938—563. 
Standard  Oil  Co.  of  Indiana  v.  United 

States,    164   Fed.   376—1940,    1946, 

1951,  1971. 
Standard    Oil    Co.    of    New    York    v. 

United  States,  179  Fed.  614—1840, 

1962,  1972. 
Standish    v.   Narragansett   Steamship 

Co.,   HI   Mass.  512—1183,   1514. 
Stanley    v.    Steele     (Conn.).    60    Atl. 

640-^1217. 
Stannard  v.  Prince,  64  N.  Y.  300 — 81. 
Stannard  Milling  Co.  v.   White  Line 

Cent.   Transit   Co.,    112   Mo.   258 — 

381,   520. 
Stanton  v.  Bell,  2  Hawks  (N.  C),  145 

—5. 
Staples  V.  Rhode  Island  S.  R.  Co.   (R. 

L),  67  Atl.  431—1088. 
Stapleton  v.  Grand  Trunk  Ry.  Co.,  133 

Mich.  187—171.  376. 
Stappers  v.  Interurb;in  St.  R.  Co.    56 

Mi.sc.  R.   (N.  Y.)    337—1089. 
Starkey  v.  Kelly,  50  N.  Y.  676—583, 
Starks  Co.  v.  Grand  Rapids  &  I.  Ry. 

Co.    (Mich.),  131   N.  W.  143—1879. 
Starksville  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Meyer, 

43  La.  Ann.   1—224. 


CiXXXVl 


TABLE  OK  CASES. 
(Tlio    rpfi'ri'iu'03   art-    to    tlu'    pages.) 


Stainosi  V.  Tx>uisvillo,  I'to..  R.  Co..  01 

TiMin.  510—491.  r>17,  SDO. 
SUistnov    V.    S<H'oiul    Ave.    K.    Co.,    01 

N.  Y'  Sujmm-.   rt.    104— lOGC. 
Stivte  V.  Adams  Kxpre.^^s  Co.,  171    Ind. 

138— 25-2.   254,    1S02,   18(H).    1!)80. 
State  ex   inf.  Crow    v.  Ateliison,  etc., 

Rv.  Co..  17t5  Mo.  (i87— (>87. 
StAte  V.  AWantie   Coast   Lino   K.   Co., 

.">!)   Fla.  0.12.  40   So.  875—125,  054. 
Stat*"  V.   Atlantic  Coa^t  Line   R.   Co., 

51    Fla.  54:!,  41    So.  529—125.  708. 
State  V.    Baltimore,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    58 

Md.  221—1470.  1477. 
State    V.    Baltimore,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    24 

Md.  84—1010.   1122. 
Strtte   V.    Boston,   etc..   R.    Co.,    58    X. 

H.  410—6. 
State  V.  Cadwallader,  172  Ind.  019 — 

94.  95. 
.State  V.  Campbell,  32  N.  J.   L.  309— 

999,   1012,    1025,   1396,   1445. 
State  V.  Carrigan,  39  N.  J.  Law   (10 

Vrooml    35—1857,    1758. 
Stiite  V.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.,  81 

Vt.  459—705,  721. 
State    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    30 

Minn.  402—135. 
State   ex.    inf.   Crow  v.   Chicago,   etc., 

Ry.  Co.,  176  Mo.  721—687. 
State  V.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co..  83 

Neb.  518—139,  706. 
State  V.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  72  Neb. 

542—125.  708. 
State  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Neb. 

593—141,  708. 
Stivte   V.   Cincinnati,    etc.,   R.    Co.,   47 

Ohio  St.   130—157.   101.   1785. 
State  V.  Clark.  109  N.  C.  739—985. 
State  V.  Concord  R.  Corp.,  62  N.  H. 

375—778. 
State  V.  Creeden,  78  Iowa,  556 — 333, 

381. 
State   V.   Chovin,    7    Iowa,   204—1068, 

1070,  1135,  1394. 
State    V.      Cumberland     Telephone    & 

Telegraph    Co.,    114    Tenn.    194—94. 
State  V.  Davton.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Ohio 

St.  436—1082. 
State    ex    rel.    Atwater    v.    Delaware, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  N.  J.  L.  55—100. 
State   V.   Foreman,    8   Yerg.    (Tenn.) 

256—1731.  1738. 
State  V.  Coold,  53  Me.  279—1394. 
State  V.  Ooss,  59  Vt.  266—129. 


State    V.    Grand    Trunk    Ry.    Co.,    58 

Me.  176—1013,  1014,  1109,  1230, 

1232. 
State  V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.    (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  44   S.   W.  542—1852. 
State  V.  Harrington.  44  Mo.  App.  297 

—589. 
State    V.    Hartford,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    29 

Conn.  53S— 124. 
State  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co..  240  HI. 

188—658.  085,  707. 
State  V.  Indiana,  120  Ind.  575—1734. 
State  V.  Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  Ind. 

09— 17;?0,  1731. 
State  V.  Intoxicating  Liquors,  83  Me. 

158—330. 
State  V.  Intoxicating  Liquors,  73  Me. 

278—203. 
State   V.   Maine,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   76  Me. 

357—1543. 
State  V.   Minneapolis   &    St.   Ry.   Co., 

115  Minn.  116—603. 
State  ex  inf.  Attorney  General  v.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  Ry.  Co.,"  241  Mo.  1—705. 
State   ex    inf.    Crow   v.   Missouri    Pac. 

Ry.  Co.,  176  Mb.  718—687. 
State  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  29  Neb. 

550—135. 
State  V.  Nebraska  Teleph.  Co.,  17  Neb. 

126—95. 
State  V.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 

Conn.  134—128. 
State  V.  Northern    Pac.  Ry.   Co.,   115 

Minn.  1078—003. 
State   V.  Overton,   24   N.   J.   L.  435— 
.  1015,  1027.  1070. 

State  V.  Parshley,  108  Me.  410—255. 
State  V.  Peet,  80' Vt.  449—1736.  1739. 
State  V.   Pullman  Palace-Car  Co.    (C. 

C),   16   Fed.   19.3—1858. 
State  V.  Railroad  Co.,  29  Conn.  538 — 

121. 
State  V.  Railroad,  63  Md.  43.3—1033. 
State   V.   Ry.   Co.    (Minn.),   41    S.  W. 

1047—1775. 
State  V.  Repuhliean  Valley  R.  Co.,  17 

Neb.  647—135,  255. 
State  V.  Seagraves,  111  Mo.  App.  353 

—1775,  1858. 
State  ex  rel.  National  Subway  Co.  v. 

St.  Ivouis,  145  Mo.  551—93. 
State  ex    reL    Cumberland   Teleph.   & 

Teleg.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 

La.  Ann.   1850—154. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


ccxxxvn 


(The   references  are   to  the   pages.) 


State  V.  Superior  Ct.,  60  Wash.  193— 

70.5. 
State  V.  Tom,  8  Or.  177—1571.  1672. 
State  ex   rel.    Sheets   v.   Union   Depot 

Co.,   71   Ohio   St.   379—1127. 
State    V.    Union     Stockyards     Co.    of 

Omaha.  81  Neb.  67,  115  N.  W.  627 

—22,  24. 
State    V.    Washington    Irr.     Co.,    41 

Wash.  283—112. 
State  V.  Western  Maryland  R.  Co.,  63 

Md.  433—1031,  1003. 
State  V.   White   Oak  Ey.   Co..   65   W. 

Va.  15—136. 
State  V.  Young    ( N.  J.),  56  Atl.  471 

—1083. 
State    Freight    Tax    Cases.    82    U.    S. 

(15  Wall.)    232—1747,   1748,   1758. 
Staten   Island   Rapid  Transit  Ry.   Co. 

y.  Marshall,  121  N.  Y.  Supp.  82— 

697. 
Staub  V.  Kendrick,  121  Ind.  226—73, 

1298. 
St.  Clair  y.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 

Iowa,  304—119,  345,  354,  358.  360, 

570. 
St.  Clair  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Eadie,  43  Ohio 

St.  91—1588.  1591. 
Steamboat  Co.  y.  Atkins,  22  Pa.   St. 

522—531. 
Steamboat  Co.  v.  Brockett,  121  U.  I*f^ 

637—1072,   1190. 
Steamboat  Farmer  v.  McCraw.  26  Ala. 

189—531. 
Steamboat  Keystone  v.  Moies,  28  Mo. 

24.3—259.  400. 
Steamboat  Lynx  v.  King,  12  Mo.  272 

—3.34. 
Steamboat    New    World   v.    King,    16 

Ilows  (U.  S.)  474—6,  258,  549,  957, 

1033,   1460. 
Steamboat  Virginia  v.  Kraft,  25  Mo. 

76—437,  620. 
Steam  Ck).  v.  Liyingston,  3  Cow.  713 

—1857. 
Steamship     Welesley    Co.    v.     C.     A. 

Cooper  &  Co..    185   Fed.  733—2003. 
Stearns   y.   Pullman    Car   Co.,    8   Ont. 

Rep.  171—66. 
Stearns    v.    Raymond,    26    Wis.    74 — 

267. 
St "dman   v.   Western   Transp.  Co.,  48 

Barb.    (N.    Y.)    97—119.    341.    343, 

KiO. 

St<<g  V.  St.  Pan!  City  R.  Co.  (Minn.), 
52  Am.  *  Kng.  R.  Cas.  550—1238. 


Steele  y.   Consolidated  Tract.   Co.,  30 

Pitts.  L.  J.  N.  S.  290—1488. 
Steele  y.  Grand  Trunk  R.   Co.,  31  U. 

C.  C.  P.  260—484. 
Steele  y.  McTyer,  31  Ala.  667—12,  75, 

520. 
Steele   y.   Southern   R.   Co.,   55   S.   C. 

389—1265. 
Steele   v.    State   Line   Steamship   Co., 

L.  R.  3  App.  72—465. 
Steele  y.  Townsend.  37  Ala.  247—426, 

4.54,  518,  551,  576,  1450. 
Steelman  v.  Taylor,  3  Ware   (U.  S. ) . 

52— 164> 
Steen    y.    Niagara    Fire    Ins.    Co.,    89 

N.  Y.  315—478. 
Steers   y.   Cunard   Steamship   Co.,   57 

N.  Y.   1—1330. 
Steers    y.    Liverpool,    etc..    Steamship 

Co.,  57  N.  Y.  1—432,  497,  569,  575, 

1294,    1333,    1455.   1460,    1461. 
SteJnman    v.    Wilkins,    7    Watts  &    S. 

(Pa.)    466—16.  22,  25,  71,  644. 
Steinwender   y.   The   Mexican   Prince, 

82  Fed.  484—2006. 
Steinweg  y.  Erie  R.  Co.,  43  N.  Y.  123 

— 461,  469,  1107. 
Steiskal  y.  Marshall  Field  &  Co.,  238 

111.  92—1530,. 
Stephens  y.  Smith.  29  Vt.  160—1138, 

1394,  1429. 
Stephenson    y.    Hart,    4    Bing.    476 — 

198,  211. 
Stephenson  y.  Little,   10  Mich.  433— 

267. 
Sterling  y.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  451,  86  S.  W.  665— 

369.  843. 
Sterling  Amusement  Co.   v.  La  Com- 

pagnie   Transatlantique,    113   N.   Y. 

Supp.  1032—2040. 
Stern  v.  Westcliester  Elec.  R.  Co.,  99 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   491—1198. 
Stcrrctt   y.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co., 

225  Mo.  99—1538. 
Stetler    y.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   49 

Wis.  609—245.  246. 
Steyenot  y.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  61  Minn. 

104 — 332. 
Steyens    v.    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co..    1 

.Mo.  App.  Rep.  247—1410. 
Stevens   v.    Bo.ston    Kiev.    R.    Co..    199 

Mass.  471—1671. 
Stevpns    V.    Boston    Elcv.    R.    Co.,    184 

Mass.  4711-1072. 


CCXXXVlll 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(Thi«    icforiMici's   lire   to   (ho    panics.) 


Stevens  v.  Boston,  etiv,  U.  t'o..  S  (Jray 

(Maas.),  202— (52:J.  tilJT. 
Stevens  v.  Boston,  i-to.,  R.  Co..  1  C.niy 

(Maa3.).  277  -:?!>(■.. 
Stfveii3  V.   EuroiH'un,  etc.,  R.   T^).,  fiO 

Me.  74—1500.  \'A\. 
Stevens   v.  Great  Western   K.   Co..  fi'l 

L.  T.  ;{24— 45<). 
Stevens  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co..  20 

Ohio  C.  C.  R.  41— 75S. 
Stevens  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc..  R.  Co.,  11 

0.  C.  D.   KiS— 707. 
Stevens    v.    Missouri    Pac.    R.   Co..    07 

Mo.  App.  356—1545. 
Stevens     v.     Saward,     69     Mass.     (3 

Grav)    108—287,  291. 
Stevens  v.  Sayward,  15  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 

474—649. 
Stevenson  v.  Joline.   Ill  N.  Y.  Supp. 

698—1569. 
Stevenson   v.   Pullman  Car  Co.    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  :52  S.  W.  3.35—64. 
Stevenson  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  20   S.  W.    112— 

64. 
Stevenson  v.   Second  Ave.   R.   Co.,  35 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   474—1500. 
Stevenson   v.   West  Seattle,   etc.,   Co., 

22  Wash.  84—1140. 
Steverman    v.    Boston    Elev.    Ry.    Co., 

205  Mass.  508—1585. 
Stewart  v.  Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co.,  88 

N.  Y.  Supp.  377—1708. 
Stewart  v.  Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co.,  37 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  273—898. 
Stewart   v.   Boston,   etc..   R.   Co..    146 

Mass.  605,  16  X.  E.  466—1244.  1662. 
Stewart  v.  Brooklyn  &   C.   R.  Co..  90 

N.    Y.   5S8— 948'.    1131,    1147,    1150, 

1166,  1168.  1182. 
Stewart  v.  C<>ntral  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.,  3 

Ga.  App.  397—201. 
Stewart  v.  Comer.   100  C.a.  754—339. 
Stewart  v.  Erie.  etc..  Transp.  Co..   17 

Minn.   372—754,   778. 
Stewart  v.  Everts,  76  Wis.  35 — 1554. 
Stewart  v.  Gracv,  93  Tenn.  314—180, 

411. 
Stewart  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co..  3  H. 

&  C.  135—464. 
Stewart       v.       Merchants       Despatch 

Transp.  Co.,  47  Iowa,  229—52. 
Stewart   v.    Railroad    Co.,    146   Mass. 

605—1224. 
Stewart  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc..  R.  Co., 

1  McCrary   (U.  S.),  312—756. 


Stewart    V.   Torre   Haute,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

:i   Fed.  70.S— 738,  757. 
Stiikney  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission. 164  Fed.  638— 1S45. 
Stierle  v.  Union  R.  Co.,  150  N.  Y.  70 

—  1080,  1116,  1216,  1218. 
Stiles  V.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co..  65  Ga. 

370—1001. 
Stiles  v.  Davis.  1   Black    (U.  S.),  101 

—281,  327.  329.  331. 
Stiles   v.    Louisville   &.   N.    R.   Co.,   33 

Ky.  Law  Rep.  625 — 827. 
Stiles     V.     Western     Union     Tel.     Co. 

(Ariz.),  15  Pac.  712—91. 
Stillwell  V.   Staples,   19   N.   Y.  401  — 

540. 
Stimson  v.   Connecticut  River   R.  C^o.. 

98  Mass.  83—1298,  1300,   1304. 
Stimson   v.  Jackson,  58   N.   IL    138— 

405.  559. 
Stimson  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7") 

Wis.  381—1470,  1477. 
Stiner  v.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co.,  84 

N.  Y.  Supp.  285—61,  1211. 
Stinson  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  32 

N.  Y.  33.3—1449.   1454.   1401,   1403. 

1407. 
St.    John    V.    Southern    Express    Co., 

1  Woods   (U.  S.),  612—523.  765. 
St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Palmer,  38 

Neb.  403—457. 
St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  35 

Kan.  18.5-971,  1039,  1057. 
St.  Joseph   Stockyards  Co.  v.   United 

States,    187    Fed.    104—1983. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Beets,  75 

Kan.  29.5—799.  882. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Brosius  & 

Le   Compte    (Tex.    Civ.   App.),    105 

S.  W.  1131—796. 
St.  T-Kiuis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Burgin,  83 

Ark.  502—478. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Cavender, 

170  Ala.  001,  54  So.  54—376,  377, 

421,  422.  797.  876,  899. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Copeland, 

23  Okl.  837—808.  876,  9.32. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Dean   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  152  S.  W.  1127—361. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Dickerson, 

29  Okl.  380—1383. 
St.  Louis  &   S.  F.  R.   Co.   v.  Dunham 

(Okl.).  129  Pac.  802—283. 
St.   Ix)uis   &   S.   F.   R.   Co.   v.   Dysart 

(Tex  Civ.  App.  I.  130  S.  W.  1047— 

903,  952.   1473. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   ai'e   to   the   pages.) 


CCXXXIX 


St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Farmers' 

Union  Gin  Co.,  34  OkL  270—347. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  German, 

79  Kan.  643—872. 

St.  Louis  &   S.   F.   R.   Co.  v.   Heyser, 

95  Ark.  412—1909. 
St.   Louis   &    S.    F.    R.    Co.   v.   James 

(Okl.),  128  Pac.  279—900. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Kimberlin 

(Te.x.  Civ.  App.),  Ill   S.  W.  671— 

888. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Knox  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  151  S.  W.  902—867. 
St.  Louis  &,  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Ladd,  33 

Okl.  160—882,  887,  900. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Lieurance, 

80  Kan.  424—864. 

St.  Louis  &   S.   F.  R.  Co.  v.  Lilly,   1 

Ala.  App.  .320—1383. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  McGivney, 

19  Okla.  361—296. 
St  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Neely  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  100  S.  W.  481—1663. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Pearce,  82 

Ark.  339—348.  442,  882,  887. 
St.  Louis  &  S.   F.  R.  Co.  v.  Phillips, 

17  Okl.  264—883. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Piburn,  30 

Okl.  262—813,  866. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Posten,  31 

Okl.  821—1538. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Puckett, 

82  Ark,  60.3—887. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Sanderson, 

99  Miss.  148—1169. 
St.   Louis  &.  S.   F.   R.   Co.  v.   Savage, 

163  Ala.  5.5—1483. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Sharrock, 

6  Ind.  Ter.  458—894. 
St.   Louis    &   S.    F.   R.    Co.   v.    United 

States,  169  Fed.  69—1983. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Vaughan, 

88  Ark.   138—786.  862. 
St.  Ivouis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  V.  Wilhclm 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),   108   S.  W.   1194 

—867. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Younjr.  30 

Okl.  588—888. 
St.  Ivouis  &  S.  W.  Ry.  Co.  v.  l'att<-n 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  118  S.  W.  798— 

684. 
fit.    Louis   Coal    R.   Co.   v.   Moore,    14 

Til.  App.  510—1083,  1118. 
St.  TvOuIh  Dnivafje  Co.  v.  Tyouisvillc  & 

N.    R.    rv...  'n.-)    Fed.    .■59— 7-29,    1127, 

1824,   1H25,    1826. 


St.  Louis,  etc..  Packet  Co.  v.  Missouri 

Pac.  R.  Co.,  35  Moi.  App.  272—753. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Adams,   4: 

Kan.  App.  305 — 228. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  118  S.  W.  1155—867. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Adcox,   52 

Ark.  406—1255. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Atchison,  47 

Ark.  74—1227. 
St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Batty,    88 

Ark.  282—1416. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beecher,  65 

Ark.  64—997. 
St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Berrv,    42 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  470 — 599. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Berry,  4  Tex, 

App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  166—1708. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Berrvhill,  3: 

Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  319—229. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bilby,  35  Okl. 

589—894. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bland   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  34  S.  W.  675—363,  736. 
St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Bone,    52. 

Ark.  26—410,  469. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boshear,  102" 

Tex.  76—933. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Branch,  45 

Ark.   524—1428. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Brosius   & 

Le   Compte    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),    105 

S.   W.    1131—880,  892. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Brown,   9a 

Ark.   35—1419. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  69  S.  W.   1010—548. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burns    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  80  S.  W.  104—859 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burns    (Tex.. 

Civ.  App.),  63  S.  W.  718—858. 
St.    Louis,    etc.,   R.   Co.   v.    Burrow   4: 

Co.,  89  Ark.  178—170. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Caldwell.  89 

Ark.  218—443. 
St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Campbell 

(Ark.),   158   S.   W.   120— 13S6. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cantrell,  37 

Ark.   519—1232,    1243.    1256.    1576, 

1677,  1715. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.   v.  Carlisle,  34 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  268—837,  908. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carr.  47   III 

App.  35.3—1197. 
St.   Tvouis,   etc.,    R.  Co.   v.   Carroll     1.3. 

Til.  App.  585—998. 


.vxl 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(Tlie   roferonccs   are   to   the   pages.) 


St.    Loiii.-*.    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Citizens' 
Bank  <«f  Little  Book.  87   Ark.  2(5— 
375.  377. 
St.    Louis,    ete..    R.    Co.    v.    Clark,    48 

Kan.  321 — 437.  822. 
St.   Louia.   etc..   R.   Co.  v.   Cleary,  77 

Mo.  034— 43ti.  407,  880.  822. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Conunereial 
U.  Ins.  Co..  139  U.  S.  223—156,  176, 
190,  229. 
St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Coolidge 

(Ark.).  83  S.  W.  333—735. 
St.   Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Coulson,   8 

Kan.  App.  4—1601. 
St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Crawford 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  35  S.  W.  748— 
206. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crowder,  82 

Ark.  562—846. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Cunibie,  101 

Ark.  172—294. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Dalhy.  19  111. 

353—1148.  1166,  1394,  1426. 
St.   Ix)uis.  etc..   R.   Co.  v.   Dallas,   93 

Ark.  209—1405. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dare.  99  Ark 

486—1140. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davenport, 

97  Ark.  82—845. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dodd,  59  Ark. 

317—384.  410,  412. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Dorman,  72 

111.  504—793,  821. 
St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.   Co.   v.    Dowgialo 

(Ark.),   101   S.  W.  412—1166. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Duck    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  72  S.  W.  445—1107. 
St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Dunn    & 

Stewart.  94  Ark.  407—922. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Edwards,  78 

Fed.  74.3-734. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elgin  Con- 
densed Milk  Co.,  175  111.  557—534, 
.545. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Evans,   99 

Ark.  69—1660. 
St.  Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Fairbairn, 

48  Ark.  491—1019. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Fairbairn 

(Mo.),  4  S.  W.  50—1126. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Fambro,  88 

Ark.  12—1524. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Farr,  70  Ark. 
264—1672. 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fenley   (Tex 

Civ.  App.).  118  S.  W.  845—1906. 
St.   Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Finley,  79 
Tex.     85—997,     1214,     1219,     1251. 

l.")91. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flanagan,  23 

111.  App.  489—133. 
St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Franklin 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  129  S.  W.  181— 
880. 
St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.   v.    Franklin 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  123  S.  W.  1150 
822.  831. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frazer   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  97  S.  W.  325—936. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Furlow,  89 

Ark.  404—443.  1902. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gorman,  79 

Kan.  643—894. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Groce  (Ark.) 

138  S.  \V.  879—1139. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.  v.  Gunter.  44 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  480,  99  S.  W.  152— 

605,  841. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.  Co.  v.   Hanks,   78 

Tex.  300—1297. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hardway,  17 

in.  App.  321—1296,  1350.  1352. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Harmon,  85 

Ark.   503—1062,    1636. 
St.   Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harper,  69 

Ark.   186—1428. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hawkins,  39 

111.  App.  406—1345,   1363. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hays,  13  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  577 — 486. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  Heath,   41 

Ark.  476—119,  341,  345,  616. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henderson, 

57  Ark.  402—151,  749,  794,  805. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henrv   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  71  S.  W.  334—602. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Heyser,  95 

Ark.  412—1911,   1925. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.  v.  Hicks  (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    158    S.    W.    192—200, 

400. 
St.   Louis,  etc..   R.  Co.  v.  Hindsman, 

1  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  204—592, 

620. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hindsman,  I 

White  &  W.  Civ.  Cas.  Ct.  App.,  §  7 

—1364. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Honea  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  84  S.  W.  267—859. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are  to  the   pages.) 


ccxli 


St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Hopkins 

(Ark.),  15  S.  W.  610—313. 
St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Huffman 

(Tex.   Civ.   App.),   32   S.   W.   30— 

1425. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Humphreys, 

25  Tex.  Civ.  App.  401—960.   1005. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Hurst,   67 

Ark.  407 — 479,  480.  482. 
St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Hurst    & 

Riley    (Tex.  Civ.  App.)    135  S.  W. 

.599—841. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  Rv.  Co.  v.  Hutchinson, 

101  Ark.  424,  142  S.  W.  527—1549, 

1603. 
St.  Louis,  etc..   R.   Co.  v.  .Jacobs,   70 

Ark.  401— SSO.  903. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  59 

Ark.  122—1690. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  53 

Ark.  282—269,  270,  286,  287. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  25 

Okl.  833—1412,  1417. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  29 

Tex.  Civ.  App.   184—1167. 
St.   Louis,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   .Jones.   93 

Ark.  537—443.  795,  840.  875. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  .lones   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  29  S.  W.  69r,— 362.  835. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Keitt   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  76  S.  W.  211—1107. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kilpatrick, 

67  Ark.  47—985. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kitchen,  98 

Ark.  507—1048. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Knight,  122 

U.   S.   79—84,    171,    176,    190,   229, 

376. 
.St.   Louis,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Lamb,   95 

Ark.  209—621. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Landa   (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    149    S.    W.    292—867, 

917. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Larned,  103 

Til.  293—218,  228,  281.  7.54. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Law,  08  Ark. 

218—856. 
St.    Louis,    etc..   R.    Co.   v.   T>awrence 

(Ark.),   153   S.  W.  799—1073. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Lear,  54  Ark. 

.399 — 638,  748,  782. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  69  Ark. 

584—118,  128,  .300. 


St.    Louis,   etc..   R.   Co.   v,   Leigh,   45 

Ark.  368—1265. 
St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Leftwich, 

117   Fed.   127—1626. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Lesser,   46 

Ark.  236 — 452,  492,  517,  771. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Lewis,   69 

Ark.  81—1428. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lloyd  (Ark.), 

150  S.  W.  864—1036. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mackie,  71 

Tex.    491—1026,    1147,    1192,    1417. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  v.  Maddry,  57  Ark. 

306—1581,  1592. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Marrs  (Ark.) 

31  S.  W.  42—731. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Marshall,  74 

Ark.  597—566. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  35  S.  W.  28—177,  192, 

571,  577. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKee,  4  Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  7 — 268,  269. 
St.   Louis,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.  Meyer,   77 

Fed.  150—1167,  1189. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell,  57 

Ark.   418—1080.    1117,    1512. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Montgomery, 

39   111.   336—83,   169,   376. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moss,  75  Ark. 

64—142,  298. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Mudford,  48 

Ark.  502—605,  617. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mudford,  44 

Ark.  439—588,  600,  607. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murphy,  60 

Ark.  333—170,  180. 
St.   ].,ouis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Murphy  & 

Kay    (Tex.  Civ.   App.),   121   S.   W. 

.306—598,  867. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murray,  55 

Ark.  248— J581. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Mynott,  83 

Ark.  6—1441. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Neel.  56  Ark. 

279—119,    156,    188,    189,   3.57,   610 

7S0. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  v.  Neel.  63  111    '>S3 

—569. 
St.   Louis,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Oliver    02 

Ark.  432—1109.   1663. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Osborne    !»5 

Ark.  310—1497. 


ccxlii 


TAHLE  OF  OASES. 


(Tlic   rofort'luos   are   to   tlie   pages.) 


Bt.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   (Isliorii.   (17 

Ark.  300—1427.  \■^:v^. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O/.ior.  8(5  Ark. 

183— 7S0,  SGI. 
St.    Ix)uis.   etc.,    K.    Co.    v.    Tai.t-,    100 

Ark.  2(50— .^OO.  1017. 
St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Parks.   07 

Tox.   131—1107. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  K.  Co.  V.  Parmer  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  30  S.  \V.  1100— r>71. 
St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.   Co.    v.    Person,   49 

Ark.  182—1576.  1676.  1670. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v.    Plielps,   4(1 

Ark.  486—588,  iiOG. 
St.  Louip,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pliiladelphia 

Fire  Assoc.  55  Ark.   163 — 556. 
St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Piper,    13 

Kan.  505—455.  762.  766.  S_>2,  007. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Plott  (Ark.), 

157  S.  W.  385—1667. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  Ry.  Co.  v.  Pollock.  93 

Ark.  240—1663. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Handle,  85 

Ark.  127—912,  913. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Reagan,  52 

111.   App.   488—1425. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rexroad.  50 

Ark.  180—1252,  1261. 
St.  Louis,   etc..   R.   Co.  v.   Robbins,   4 

Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  4.3—516. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rogers  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  108  S.  W.  1027—802. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rose,  20  111. 

App.   670—234,   277. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rosenberry, 

45  Ark.  256—1227,  1243,  1582. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith   (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),   135  S.  W.  597—844. 
St.  Louis,   etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Smuck,  49 

Ind.  302—435,  455,  1333,  1458. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   South.   43 

111.  176—1304. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v,   Spann.   57 

Ark.  127—440. 
St.   Louis,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    State,    S4 

Aj-k.   150—348. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stell,  87  Ark. 

308—1524. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Stone,    78 

Ark.  318—1345. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Sweet,   60 

Ark.  5.50—1211. 
St.   Louis,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Sweet,   67 

Ark.  287—1211. 


St.   Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Taylor,   87 

Ark.  331—142. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tcrrill   ('l'<x. 

Civ.  App.),  72  S.  VV.  4.30— I35ti. 
St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Tribboy,   6 

Kan.  App.  467—032. 
St.  Louis,  etc..   R.  Co.  v.  Trimble,  54 

Ark.  354—1711,  1714. 
St.   Louis,  etc.,    R.   Co.  v.  True   Bros. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  140  S.  W.  837— 

870. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Turner,    1 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  625 — 486. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Turner  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  77  S.  VV.  255—1237. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Turner   (Tox. 

Civ.  A,pp.),  20  S.  W.  1008—485. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Tyler  Codin 

Co.   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  81  S.  \V.  826 

—281. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Valirius,  56 

Ind.  511—1114. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vaughan,  88 

Ark.  138—843. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vaughan,  84 

Ark.  311—840. 
St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Vaughan 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  113  S.  W.  103.5— 

801. 
St.  Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Waggoner, 

90  111.  App.  556—1190. 
St.  Louis,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.   v.   Washura,. 

96  Ark.  384—715.  861. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.  v.  Watson,  97 

Ark.  560—1548. 
St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Waters 

(Ark.),  152  S.  W.  137—1404. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Weakly,  50 

Ark.  397—430,  402,   730,   745,  771. 

873,  904.  026,  1454,   14.36,  1457. 
St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Wells,    81 

Ark.  460—894. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  West  Bros. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  159  S.  W.  142— 

1883. 
St.  Ix)uis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White   (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),   34    S.    W.    1040—1058. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Wiggam,  98 

Ark.    259—1062. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilhelm,  49 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  639 — 602. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  100 

Ark.  356—1446. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Williams   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  37  S.  W.  992—1402. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


ccxliii 


(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


St.   Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Williams 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  32  S.  W.  225— 

478. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Wolf,    100 

Ark.    22—647. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Wood,   99 

Ark.  363—785. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  \\oodruff.  89 

Ark.   9—1003,    1438. 
St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co.  v.  Chicago 

&  A.   R.   Co.,    151    ill.   App.   3f5-*— 

382. 
St.  Louis  Hav  &  Grain  Co.  v.  Soutli- 

em  Ry.  Co',  149  Fed.  609-1804. 
St.  Louis,  I.  M.  &  S.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Citi. 

zens'  Bank  of  Little  Rock,  87  Ark. 

26—536,    546. 
St.  Louis  I.  M.  &  S.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Gil- 
breath,  87  Ark.  572—1549. 
St.  Louis  1.  M.  &  S.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hai- 

tung,    95   Ark.    220—1621. 
St.  Louis  I.  M.  &  S.  Rv.  Co.  v.  State, 

84  Ark.  150—135, 
St.  Louis  I.  M.  &  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor, 

87  Ark.  331—932. 
St.  Louis  I.  M.  &  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Wynne 

Hoop  &  Cooperage  Co.,  81  Ark.  373 

—136,  301,  596. 
St.  Louis  Ins.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 

R.    Co.,    104   U.    S.    146—738,    760, 

778,  780. 
St.  Louis  Merchants'  B.  T.  R.  Co.  v. 

Taiisey,   122  Ind.  App.  339—840. 
St.   Louis   St.   R.   Co.   V.   Homer,    137 

111.  App.  548—1480. 
St.  Ix)uis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  V.  Adis   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  142  S.  W.  95.5—1550. 
St.   I^uis    S.   W.   R.   Co.   V.   Ball.   28 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  287—1209. 
St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.,  V.  Berg'T.  64 

Ark.  613—1171,   1551. 
St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.   Co.  v.  B*>rry,  60 

Ark.   433—1295,   1301,    1337. 
St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Blaek   (Tox. 

Civ.   App.),   109  S.  W.  410—918. 
St.  Tx)uis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Bra^s   (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    133    S.    W.    107.5-380. 
St.   T»uis   S.  W.  R.  Co.   V.   Burke,  41 

Tex.   Civ.  App.  273—608. 
St.   I>ouis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  V.  lUitler,  82 

Ark.  469—875,  882. 
St.   Ix)uis   S.   W.   R.   Co.   V.   Canning- 
ton    (Tf'x.    Civ.    App.).    no   S.   W. 

96.5—933. 


St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Cafces   (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),    38   S.    W.   648—734. 
St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Doiau    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  84  S.  W.  393—589. 
St.   Louis   S.   W.   R.   Co.   v.   Ferguson 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  64  S.   W.   797— 

1249.  1592. 
St.  Louis  .S.  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Foster  (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    112    S.    W.    797—962, 

1007. 
St.    Louis    S.    W.    R.    Co.    v.    Fowler 

(Tex.   Civ.   App.),   93   S.   W.  484— 

972. 
St.   Louis   S.   W.   R.   Co.   v.   Franklin 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  44   S.  W.  701— 

978,  1164. 
St.    Louis    S.    W.    R.    Co.    v.    Fussell 

(Tex.),  97  S.  W.  332—995. 
St.    Louis    S.    W.    R.    Co.    v.    Gr amb- 
ling, 97  Ark.  353-682. 
St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Gravson  & 

Seitz,   89   Ark.   154—887.   1924. 
St.   Louis   S.   W.   R.   Co.   v.   Gresham 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  140  S.  W.  483— 

nil. 

St.  I^uJs  S.  W.  R.  Co.  V.  Griffith,  12 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  631,  35  S.  W.  741— 

862,  1007,  1016. 
St.  Ix>uis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  V.  Hammett, 

98  Ark.   418—1076. 
St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Harvey,  144 

Fed.  806—1045. 
St.  L<juis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  V.  Hill    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  103  S.  W.  227—1035. 
St.  Ix)uis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  V.  Hunt  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  81  S.  W.  322—816.  8,59. 
St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  V.  I^eder  Bros., 

87  Ark.  298—141.  302,  610. 
St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Leder  Bros., 

79  Ark.  59—720. 
St.    Txjuis    S.    W.    R.    Co.     v.     T^flar 

(Ark.),   140   S.  W.  530—1504. 
St.   Louis   S.   W.   R    Co.   v.   Lewellen 

Bros.,   192  Fed.  540—1887. 
St.   Louis   S.   W.   R.   Co.   v.   Lewellen 

Bros.    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),   116  S.  W. 

116—822. 
St.    Txiuis    S.    W.    R.    Co.   v.   Afallard 

fArk.).  148  S.  W.  261  —  1166. 
St.  Ivouis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  V.  Martin.  26 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  231—1009. 
St.   T»uis   S.   W.  R.   Oo.  V.   Missouri, 

Tex.    Civ.    App.    157    S.    W.    245— 

1001. 


ccidiv 


TABLE  OF  OASiLt). 
(The   references   ure   to    tlio    pages.) 


St.   Louis   S.    VV.    R.   Co.    v.    Miteliell. 

101  Ark.  JSi*— .S02,  SOH,  SU!l,  S;>7. 
St.    Louis    S.    W.    K.    Co.    V.    Morgan 
(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  i)S   S.   \N  .   408— 

1575. 
St,    Louis    S.    W.    R.    Co.    v.    iMu.>*ick 
(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  80  S.   W.  073— 

860. 
St.   Louis   S.    W.     R.     Co.    v.   Nelson 

(Tex.),   44   S.   W.    179— 10;J7. 
St.    Louis    8.    W.    R.    Co.    v.    Plioeiiix 

Cotton   Oil   Co.,   88   Ark.   594— 2<10, 

3Gli,  439. 
St.    iMxiis    S.    W.    R.    Co.     V.     Fruitt 

(Tex.),  SO  S.  VV.  72—988. 
St.    Louis    S.    \V.    R.    Ck).     v.     Pruii-t 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  79   S.  W.  598— 

96G. 
St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Ray   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),   127   S.  W.  281—1907, 

1920. 
St.    Louis    S.    W.    R.    Co.    V.    Smith 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  86   S.  W.  943— 

1637. 
St.    Louis    S.    W.    R.    Co.    v.    Spring 

Riv«r  Stone  Co.,  169  Mo.  App.  109 

—1772,  1882, 
St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson 

(Tex,  Civ.  App.),  103  S.  W.  684— 

348. 
St.  Louis  S.  AV.  R.  Co,  v.  Tittle  (Tex, 

Civ,  App.),  115  S.  W.  640—1107, 
.St.  Louis  S,  W.  R,  Co.  v.  Turlow,  81 

Ark.  496—1416, 
St,   Louis   S.   W.   R.   Co.   v.   Wallace, 

32  Tex.  Civ.  App.  312—998,    1285. 
St.   Louis  S.  W.  R.   Co.  v.   Williams 

(Tex.   Civ.  App,),  32   S,  W,  225— 

585,  848, 
St.   Louis    S.   W.   R.   Co.   v.   Woldert 

Grocery  Co.    (Tex.  Civ.  App.).   144 

S,  W.   1194 — 561. 
St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  V.  Wright,  33 

Tex.  Civ,  App.  80—1551. 
Stockard  v,  Morgan,   185  U.  S.  27— 

1734. 
vStockton  v,   Prev,  4  Gill.    (Md.)    406 

—1132,   1213,  "1488.  1512. 
Stockton    Lumber    Co.    v.    California 

Nav.   &   Improvement  Co.,    10   Cal. 

App.   197—308,   317. 
Stockton    Milling    Co.    v.    California 

Nav.  &  Imp,    Co.,    165   Fed.   356— 

2022. 


StiK-k  Yards  Co.  v.  I>niisville,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  07   Fed.  35 — 135. 
Stoddard    v.    Ivong    Island    H.    Co.,    6 

Sandf.    (N.  Y.)    180—460,   1461. 
Stoddard  v.  New  York,  etc.,    K.   Co., 

181   Mass.  422—1051,   1199, 
Stoddard    v.    St.    lx)uis,    (itc.,    R.    Co. 

(Mo.    App,),    80    S.    W.    33—1237, 

1609. 
Stodder  v.  New  York,  e.tc.,  R.  Co.,  50 

Hun    (N.  Y,),  221—1083,   1121, 
Stoher  v,   St.   Ixmis,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   91 

Mo.    509—1554. 
Stoke-s  v.  Eastern  Counties  R.  Co.,  2 

F.  &  F.  691—1118. 
Stokes  v.  Saltonstall,  13  Pet.   (U.  S,) 

181—24,  948,  1132,  1211,  1264,  1488, 

1552. 
StoUenwerch    v.    Thacher,    115    Mass, 

24—218, 
Stone  v.  Adams  Express   0>.    (Ky.), 

122  S.  W.  200—347,  608,  622, 
Stone    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R,    Ck>,,    47 

Iowa,  82—1014,  1397, 
Stone  V,  Detroit,  etc,  R.   Co.,  3  Int. 

Com.   Rep.  60—1791,   1828. 
Stt)ne  V.  Dry  Dock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   115 

N.  Y.  104—1588. 
Stone  V.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  116  U. 

S.  308—1230. 
Stone  V.  Rice,  58  Ala.  95—258, 
Stone    V.    Waitt,    31    Me.    409—190, 

272,  455. 
Stoneman   v,   Erie   R.   Co,,   52   N.   Y. 

429—1299,   1300, 
Stoner   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    109 

Iowa,  551—351,  540. 
Stoner  v.   Pennsylvania   Co.,   98   Ind. 

384—1624. 
Storer  v.  Gowen,  18  Me.  177 — 6. 
Storey  v.  Hershey,  19  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 

485—215, 
Storr  V,  Crowley,  1  McClel,  &  Y.  129 

—251,  264. 
Storrs  V.  Los  Angeles  Tract,  Co..  134 

Cal.  91—1714. 
Storv  V.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R,  Co,,  133  N, 

C."  59— 1720. 
Storv  Lumber  Co.  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 

151  N.  C.  23—621. 
Stowe  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  C5o.,  113 

Mass.  521—380,  392,  411. 
Strahorn   v.   Union    Stock   Yard,   etc,, 

Co..  43  111.  424—214,  242. 
Straight  Creek  Mining  Co.  v.  Straight 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references   are   to   the   pages.) 


ccxlv 


Creek    Coal   &    Coke    Co.,    135    Ky. 

536 — 104,   706,   715. 
Strain  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123 

La.  407 — 974. 
Straiton  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co..  2 

E.  D.   (N.  Y.)    184—780. 
Strand    v.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    67 

Mich.  380—1219,   1596. 
Strange  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

77  S.  C.  182—1382,  1386. 
Strange  v.   Missouri   Pac.   R.  Co.,  61 

Mo.  App.  586—1256. 
Stratton  v.  Central  City  Horse  R.  Co., 

95  111.  525—1533. 
Straus  V.  Kansas   City,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

72  Mo.  414—1568. 
Strauss  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

86  Mo.  421—1241. 
Strauss   v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

75  Mo.  18.5—1237,  1241,  1677. 
Strauss  v.  St.  Louis  Tr.  Co.,  102  Mo. 

App.  644—1167. 
Street    v.    Morrison,    10    Xew    Bruns. 

296—187. 
Streets  v.   Grand   Trunk  R.   Co.,   178 

N.  Y.  553—1064. 
Strembel  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 

110  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   23—1094. 
Strieker  v.  Leathers,  68  Miss.  803 — 

239. 
Strickland      v.      Barrett,      20      Pick. 

(Mass.)   415—284. 
Stringer  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99 

Ala.   397—6,   549,    1460. 
Stringfield    v.    Louisville    R.    Co.,    32 

Ky.  L.  R.  578—1401,   1405. 
Stringfield   v.   Soutiiern  Ry.   Co.,   152 

N.  C.  125—514. 
Strohm    v.    Detroit,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    23 

Wis.  126—27. 
Strohm  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co..  96 

N.  Y.  305—1716,  1718. 
Strohn    v.    Detroit,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    21 

Wis.  554 — 430,  437,  446. 
Strong  V.  Adams,  30  Vt.  221—531. 
Strong  V.  Campbell,  11  Barb.   (N.  Y.) 

13r>— 85. 
Strong    V.    Granfl    Trunk    R.    Co.,    15 

Mich.  20S— 675. 
Strong  V.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  91  App. 

Div.    (N.   Y.)    442 — 483. 
Strong  V.  Natallv,    1    B.   &  P.   N.   R. 

16—256. 
Strong*'  V.  North  Chicago  St.  R.  Co., 

116   111.    .\pp.   246—972,  974,    1274. 


Stronge  v.  Western  Union  Telegraph 

Co.,  18  Idaho,  409—94. 
Strough   v.   N.   Y.   Cent.   &   H.   R.   R. 

Co.,   181  N.  Y.  533—136,   139,  356. 
Strough  V.   N.   Y.   Cent.  &   H.   R.   R. 

Co.,   92   App.   Div.    (N.   Y.)    584— 

136,    139,   304,    660,   710,   712,   713, 

726. 
Strouss   V.   Wabash,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    17 

Fed.  209—1299,   1301. 
Struble  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  226  Pa. 

118—1603,  1694. 
Stuart    V.    Crawley,    2    Stark,    323— 

99.  927, 
Stuber  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

Fed.   421—1062. 
Sturgeon  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65 

Mo.    569—582,   598,    606,    819,    838. 
Sturges  v.   Detroit,   G.   H.  &  M.  Ry. 

Co.,   166  Mich.  231—542,   1909. 
Sturgess   v.   Bissell,   46   N.   Y.   462— 

581. 
Stutsky  V.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 

88  N.  Y.  Siipp.  358—1191. 
Stutz  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Wis. 

147—1710,   1716,   1717,   1719,   1729. 
Sulakowski  v.  Flint,  22  La.  Ann.  6 — 

108. 
Sullivan  v.   C-apital  Traction  Co.,  34 

App.  D.  C.  358—1488,  1649. 
Sullivan   v.   Charleston  &   W.   C.   Ry. 

Co.,  85  S.  C.  532—1482. 
Sullivan  v.  India  Mfg.  Co.,  113  Mass. 

396—1063. 
Sullivan  v.  Jefferson  Ave.  R.  Co.,  133 

Mo.  1—1188. 
Sullivan   v.   Kuykendall,   82   Ky.   483 

—95. 
Sullivan  v.  Metropolitan  St.  Rv.  Co., 

54  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  632—1729. 
Sullivan   v.   Old   Colony   St.   Ry.   Co., 

200  Mass.  303—1139. 
Sullivan   v.   Old    Colony   R.    Co..    148 

Mass.  119—1194. 
Sullivan   v.   Oregon    R.,   etc.,    Co.,    12 

Or.  392—1131,  1559,  1723.  1725. 
Sullivan  v.  Park,  33  Me.  438-049. 
Sullivan  v.  Philadelphia,  etc..  R.  Co., 

30   Pa.   St.   234—1103,    1131,    1270, 

1495,  1512. 
Sullivan  v.  Seattle  Flee.  Co..  51  Wash. 

71—1196,  1271. 
Sullivan  v.  Sciittle  Elec.  Co.,  44  Wash. 

5.3—1196.  1597. 


•xlvi 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


(Tlif   ii'ffiiMK'is   are   to   tlie   pages. 


Sullivan    v.    So\itluMii    \'\\ ..    74    S.    C. 

.■?77 — 13-l(i.    l;{(iS. 
Sullivan   v.   Tluuui'soii,   !)",)    Mas-s.   2o!) 

— 2">4,  707. 
Sullivan   v.    rni<Mi    Rv.    <'o.,   SI    Apji. 

Div.    (N.    Y.)    riOti  — ir»SS. 
Sullivan    v.    Vifksinni:,    t^tc,    R.    Co., 

•^'^  Jm.  Ann.  sno— l-iU. 
Sullivan  Sanfoni  LuinU>r  Co.  v.  Wat- 
son   (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    155    S.    W. 

17!)— 1032,    1471. 
Suinnicrlin  v.  Scahoanl  Air  Line  Ry., 

5()   Fl;u  087—790.  830,  8!)4. 
Summers  v.  Crescont  City  R.  Co.,  34 

La.    Ann.    l.-?!!— 1241,    1657. 
Summers  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  114  Mo. 

App.  452—871,  002. 
Summitt  v.  State,  S  Lea  (Tenn.),  413 

—  1127.  1409. 
Sumner    v.    Charles    P.    Choteau.    37 

Fed.  532—738. 
Sumner  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78 

N.  C.  289—367.  543. 
Sumner  v.  Southern  R.  Assoc,  7  Baxt. 

(Tenn.)    340—039,  744. 
Sun  Co.  V.  llealy.  163  Fed.  48—2003. 
Sunday  v.  Gordon.  B.  &  H.  Adra.   (U. 

S.)  '509—1254. 
Sunderland  v.  Westeott,  40  How.  Pr. 

(X.  Y.)   468—272,  1454. 
Sunderland  v.  Westeott,  2  Sweeny  (N. 

Y'.).  260-407. 
Sunderland  Bros.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

R.  Co..  89   Xeb.   660—309. 
Susong  v.  Florida  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

115  Ga.  301—850,  907. 
Sutherland    v.    Peoria   Bank,    78    Ky. 

250—213,  244,  330.  3.32. 
Sutro  V.   Fargo,  41   X.  Y.   Super.   Ct. 

231—575,  578. 
Suttle  V.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  150  N.  C. 

668—1600. 
Sutton    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    (S. 

D.),  84  N.  W.  396—539.  774. 
Sutton    V.    Pennsylvania    R.   Co.,   230 

Pa.  .523—1492. 
Sutton   V.   St.   Louis   &   S.   F.   R.   Co., 

159  Mo.  App.  685—626,   1843. 
Sutton   V.   Wauwatosa,  29   Wi.s.   21 — 

1599. 
Swan   v.  Ivouisville  &  N.  R.  Co..   106 

T.-nn.  229—692. 
Swan  V.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132 

^fass.  116—1.395. 


Swartliout   V.   Xew   Jersey    Steamboat 

Co.,  48  N.  Y.  209—1130. 
Sweatland  v.  Illinois,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  27 

Iowa,  458—87,  91. 
Sweatt  V.  lidstoii,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Cliff. 

(C.  S.)    339—1733,  1857. 
Sweeden     v.     Atkinson    Imp.    Co.,    93 

Ark.  397—1165. 
Sweeney  v.  Colter,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  885 

—  1034. 
Sweeney  v.  Kansas  City  Cable  R.  Co., 

150   Mo.  385—1647. 
Sweeney  v.  Railway  Co.,  150  Mo.  385 

—1175. 
Sweeny    v.    Railroad    Co.,     10    Allen 

(Mass.),  368-1073. 
Sweet   v.   Barney,   23    X.   Y.   335—39, 

205,   207,   219.    244,   253,   272. 
Swetland  v.   Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   102 

Mass.  276—139,  355,  550,  748,  778. 
Swift  V.  Pacific  Mail  Steamship  Co., 

106  X.  Y.  206—293,  446,  452,  755. 

778.  779. 
Swift  V.  Staten  Island  R.  T.  Co.,  123 

X.  Y.  045—1587,   1589. 
Swift  V.  Tyson,   16  Pet.    (U.  S.)    1— 

450. 
Swift  V.  United  States,  196  U.  S.  375 

—1732. 
Swift  &  Co.  V.  Furncss,  Withy  &  Co., 

87  Fed.  34,5—2015. 
Swigert  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75 

Mo.  475—1237,  1614. 
Swindler  v.  Hiliard,  2  Rich    (S.  C), 

286—76,  458,  577. 
Swisher  v.  Williams   Wright    (Ohio). 

754—1599. 
Switzerland  Marine  Ins.  Co.  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,   131   U.  S.  440— 

1298. 
Switzerland    Marine   Ins.   Co.    v.   The 

Flamborough,  69   Fed.  470—1996. 
Sword  V.  Young,  89  Tenn.   126,   129 — 

21 L  232,  234,  235. 
Sycamore    Marsh,    etc.,    Mfg.    Co.     v. 

Sturm,  13  Xeb.  211—016. 
Symonds  v.  Pain,  6  Hurl.  &  X.  709 — 

57. 
Syracuse    First    Xat.    Bank     v.     Xew 

York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  85  Hun   (X.  Y.), 

160—216. 
Szezepanski    v.    Chicago   R.    Co.,    147 

Wis.  180—1037. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


ccxlvii 


T. 

Taber   v.    Delaware,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    71 

N.  Y.  4S9— 1211,  1225,   1226,   1233, 

1243,  1673. 
Tabler    v.    Hannibal,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   93 

Mo.   79—1678. 
Taffe  V.  Oregon  R.  &  Nav.  Co.    (Or.), 

68  Pac.  7:^2—767. 
Taffe  V.  Oregon  R.  Co.   (Or.),  67  Pac. 

1015—767. 
Tan    Vale   R.   Co.   v.    Giles,   2   El.   & 

Bl.  822—256. 
Taff  Vale  R.  Co.  v.  Giles,  25  L.  J.  Q. 

B.  43—806. 
Taillon   v.   Mears.   29   Mont.    161—63. 

1149,   1213. 
Talbert  v.  Charleston  &  N.  C.  Ry.,  75 

S.  C.  136—1250. 
Talbott       V.       Merchants       Despatch 

Transp.    Co.,    41    Iowa,    247—307. 

449. 
Taleott    V.    Wabash    R.    Co.,    89    Hun 

(N.  Y.).  492—1302. 
Taleott   V.    Wabash    R.    Co.,    66    Hun 

(N.  Y.),  456—1298,   1361. 
Taleott  V.  W'abash  R.  Co.,  159  N.  Y. 

462—1362. 
Taleott  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,   188  is.  Y. 

608—1367. 
Taleott  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  159  N.  Y. 

461—538.  1299,  1362. 
Tall   V.   Baltimore   Steam   P.   Co.,   90 

Md.  248—1190. 
Tallahassee  Falls  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Western 

Ry.  of  Alabama   (Ala.),  29  So.  203 

—203,  519. 
Tamlin  v.   Great  Northern  R.   Co.,   1 

H.  &  N.  408—1704. 
Tanger  v.  South  West  Mo.  E.  R.  Co., 

85  Mo.  App.  28—1167,  1434. 
Tannchill    v.    Birmingham    Ry..    etc., 

Co.    (Ala.),  58  So.   198—1682. 
Tanner   v.    Buffalo   Rv.   Co.,   72    Hun 

(N.  Y.)   465—1643,"^  1647. 
Tanner  v.  Tx)ui9iana.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60 

Ala.  621—1133,   1258. 
Tanner    v.    New    YorI<    Cent.,    etc.,    R. 

CV)..  108  \.  Y.  02.3—550. 
Tanner  v.  Oil  f'rc-k  R.  Co.,  53  Pa.  St. 

411—381.  398,  598. 
Tarbfll  V.  Central  Pao.  R.  Co.,  34  Cai. 

616—991.    1135. 
Tarhell   v.  Northern  Cent.    H.   Co..  24 

Jlun   (N.  Y.),  51  —  1016,  1411,  1410. 


Tarbell   v.    Royal   Exchange   Shipping 

Co.,   110  N.  Y.   170—384.  391,  394, 

399. 
Tardos    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    35 

La.  Ann.  15 — 595,  781. 
Tardos  v.  Toulon,  14  La.  Ann.  429— 

570. 
Tarr    v.    Oregon    Short    Line    R.    Co. 

(Idaho),  93  Pac.  957—1390. 
Tarrant  v.  St.  Louis,  eto.,  R.  Co.,  237 

Mo.  655—1390. 
Tate  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  26  Kv. 

Law  Rep.  309—1193. 
Tate   V.    Missouri    Pac.    Ry.   Co.,    157 

III.   App.    105—309,   786. 
Tate  V.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Mis> 

842—176. 
Tattan  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  2  El, 

&  El.  844—948. 
Taubman   v.   Pacific   Steam  Nav.   Co.. 

26  L.  T.  704—465. 
Taugher  v.  Northern  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  21 

N.  D.   111—329. 
Tavlor  v.  Carew  Mfg.  Co.,   143  Mast^. 

470—1541. 
Tavlor   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    74 

ill.  86—755. 
Taylor  v.  Collier,  26  Ga.  122—590. 
Taylor  v.  Florida  East  Coast  Ry.  Co.. 

54  Fla.   636—120. 
Tavlor  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  48  N. 

H.    304—1083,     1115,     1213,     1722, 

1724,  1726. 
Tavlor  v.  Great  Northern  R.   Co.,  L. 

R.  1  C.  P.  385—343,  359,  360. 
Taylor  v.  Little  Rock,  etc..  R.  Co.,  39 

Ark.  148—771,  1456,   1457. 
Tavlor  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Ark.  393—418,  766. 
Taylor  v.   Liverpool,   etc..   Steam   Co.. 

L.  R.  9  Q.  B.  546—519. 
Tavlor   v.    Maine  Central    R.   Co.,   87 

Me.  299—757. 
Tavlor   v.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    26 

Mo.  App.  336—1677. 
Tavlor  v.   IMoimot.   4   Duer.    (N.   Y.) 

i  10—1295. 
Tavlor   v.    Pennsvlvania   Co.,   50    Fed 

755— lOSl,  1126. 
Tavlor  v.  Pennsvlvania  R,  Co.,  8  N.  J 

L.  J.  149— 4r9,  457. 
Taylor   v.   Railroad   Co..   4.'>   Mich     74 

—1104. 
Tavlor  v.  Smith,  87  .\pp.  Div.  (N.  Y  ) 

7-'— (i.-il,  632. 


OOXlVlll 


TABLE  OK  CASKS. 
(The    refor(MUTS   are   to    tho    piij^cs. > 


ruvlor   V.    Star   ('<»al    (.'<>.    (Iowa).    SI 

N.  W.  24!t—l  .")!>!>. 
Taylor  v.  Weir   (C.  C,  Pa.).   K'-i   I'lil. 

585—510. 
lavlor   V.   Wells,   3   Watts    (Pa.),   f.") 

—265. 
Taylor,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  MontjToiiK  ry.  4 

Tex.    App.    Civ.    Cas.,    §    238— 51t!, 

806. 
Tavior.   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Siiblett    (Tex. 

App.),   16  S.  W.   182—516. 
lavlor.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  79  Tex. 

i  04— 1554. 
league  V.   Soutliern   R.  Co.,  45   S.  C 

27—612. 
Teale   v.    Southern    Pac.    Co.    (Cal.), 

129  Pae.  949—1668. 
Ft  all  V.   Felton,   1   N.  Y.  537—85. 
Tea  11  V.   Sears,  9   Barb.    (N.  Y.)    317 

—SO.  81. 
Teel  V.  Coal   &   Coke  Ry.   Co.,  66   W. 

Va.  315—1172. 
Teft  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  123  Fed.  789 

-1780. 
Telfer  v.  Northern  R.  Co..  30  N.  J.  L. 

188—1270. 
Tempfer    v.    .Topi  in    &    P-.    Ry.     Co. 

(Kan.),  131  Pa.c.  592—1595,  1700. 
Ten  p:yck  v.  Harris.  47  111.  268—235. 
Tennery  v.  Pippinger,  1  Phila.    (Pa.) 

543—1488. 
Tennessee  R.  Co.  v.  Walker,  11  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)    383—1511. 
Tennis  v.  Interstate,   etc.,  R.  Co.,  45 

Kan.  503-1564. 
Terre  Haute,  Elec.  Co.  v.  Kiely   (Ind. 

App.),  72  N.  E.  658—1107,  1108. 
Terre  Haute  Elec.   Ry.   Co.  v.  Lauer, 

21   Ind.  App.  466—1163. 
Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Buck,  96 

Ind.  .346—1212.  1232,  1237,  1673. 
Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago, 

etc..  R.  Co.,  150  111.  502—51. 
Terre  Haute,  eto.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clem.  123 

Ind.   15—564. 
Terre  Haute,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Crews,  53 

111.   App.  50—150,   151. 
T.rre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitzgerald, 

47   Ind.  79—992.   1025. 
Terre  Haute,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson, 

81  Ind.  19—1166.  1261. 
Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sherwood, 

132    Ind.    129—455,   571,    572,   577, 

873.  907,  1458. 
Terre  Haute,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Vanatta, 

'>1  111.  188—1390.  1714. 


lene  liiuite  Traet.,  etc..,  Co.  v.  Payne, 

45   hid.   App.    1. •{2-1578. 
I'cvvv    V.     Flu^^liing,    etc..    R.    Co..    13 

llun      (N.     Y.),     359—1014,     1026, 

1070. 
Terry   v.   Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    14   Tex. 

Civ.  App.  451—594. 
Terry  v.  Jewett,  78  N.  Y.  338—1690. 
Terrv  v.   Soutliern  Ry.  Co.,  81   S.   C. 

279—489. 
Te\Yes  V.   North   German  Lloyd   S.   S. 

Co..  186  N.  Y.  151—505,  oil,  1334. 
Texarkana  &  Ft.  S.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Nwkis 

Iron  Works,  57  Tex.  Civ.  App.  249 

—623. 
Texarkana  St.   R.   Co.   v.   Hart    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  26  S.  W.  435—1583. 
Texas    &    G.    R.    Co.    v.    Boron     (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  149  S.  W.  295—1163. 
Texas  &  New  Orleans  R.  Co.  v.  Crow- 

der,  63  Tex.  502—1542.   1543. 
Texas  &  N.  0.  R.  Co.  v.  E.  R.  &  D.  C. 

Kolp,  Jr.    (Tex.   Civ.  App.),   88   S. 

W.  417—367. 
Texas  &  N.  0.  R.  Co.  v.  Grav    (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),  99  S.  W.   1125—921. 
Texas  &   N.  O.  R.  Co.  v.   Harrington 

(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  98   S.  W.  653— 

1695. 
Texas   &   N.   O.   R.    Co.   v.    Lawrence 

(Tex.   Civ.   ApD.),  95   S.  \V.  663— 

1295. 
Texas  &  N.  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Russell   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  97  S.  W.  1090—1386. 
Texas  &  N.  0.  R.  Co.  v.  Wallace  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).   139  S.  W.   1052—1685. 
Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Abilene  Cotton 

Oil  Co.,  204  U.  S.  426—1773,  1879. 
Texas   &    P.    Ry.   Co.   v.   Allen    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  98  S.  W.  450—143,  148. 
Texas  &   P.  Ry.   Co.  v.   Arnett    (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    101    S.    W.    S.34— 605. 

870. 
Texas   &   P.   Ry.   Co.  v.   A  very    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  33  S.  W.  704—1853. 
Texas   &   P.   R.   Co.   v.    Barrow    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  94  S.   W.   176—789. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Bigiiam,  90  Tex. 

223—928. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Black,  87  Tex. 

160—1526. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Bovd   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.).  141   S.  W.  1076—1282.  1584. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Buckalew,  3  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  272—1214,   1476,   1501. 
Texas    &    V.    R.    Co.    v.    Byers    Bros. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


ccxli>; 


(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  84  S.  W.  1087— 
871. 
Texas   &    P.    Rv.    Co.   v.   Bvers   Bros. 
(Tex.   Civ.   App.),   73   S.'W.   427— 

924,  9.34. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Capps,  2  Wilson. 

Civ.  Cas.  Ct.  App.,  §  35 — 1356. 
Texas   &   P.    R.   Co.   v.  Cassidv    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.  I,  137  S.  W.  389—1004. 
Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Cisco  Oil  :\Iill, 

204  r.  S.  449—1839. 
Texas    &    P.    Rv.    Co.   v.    Clavton,    84 

Tex.  305—764. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Cogsjin  &  Duna- 

way     (Tex.    Civ.    App.)^    99    S.    W. 

1052—820. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Dawson.  34  Tex. 

Civ.   App.  240—832. 
Texas   &   P.   R.   Co.  v.   Dick,   26  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  256—998. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Diefenbach.  1G7 

Fed.  39—1413.  1424.  1431.  1442. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Disliman  &.  Trib- 

ble   (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  85  S.  W.  319 

—905. 
Texas  &.  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Eastin  &  Knox, 

100  Tex.  556—826.   ' 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  E.iins,  36  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  639—851.  873. 
Teva.s  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Fambrou<?li   (Tex. 

Civ.  App).  ,55  S.  W.  188-798. 
Texas   &    P.   R.    Co.    v.   F^lker    <  Tex. 

Civ.    App.).    99   S.    W.    439—850. 
Texas    &    P.    R.   Co.    v.    Felker    (Tex. 

Oiv.  App.),  90  S.  W.  530—914. 
Texas   &    P.    R.   Co.   v.   Gardner,    114 

Fed.   180—1488. 
Texa-  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Centrv.   160   U. 

S    353—1517. 
Texa«  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  nas<;r.]l.  23  Tex. 

fiv.    App.    681,   58   S.   VV.    54—608, 

737. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  llensnn.  56  T<-x. 

Civ.    .\tip.    468-121    S.    W.    1127— 

104.  SOO. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Tsonliower   (Tex. 

Civ.    App.).    131    S.    W.    297—598, 

867. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  .Tones   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.).  39  S.  W.  124—981.  1281. 
Texas  A  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Langliein    (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    150   S.    W.    1188-247, 
366. 
Texns  4  P.  Rv.  Co.  v.  T^nghlin    (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  158  S.  W.  244—479. 


Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Leakev  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  87  S.  W.  1168— 11 10. 
Texas   &    P.   Rv.   Co.   v.   Leslie    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),' 131  S.  VV.  824—920. 

1890. 
Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Moore  (Tex 

Civ.  App.),  119  S.  W.  697— 59l^ 

842,  877. 
Te.xas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Morse,  1  Wliitr 

&    N.    Civ.    Cas.    Ct.    App.     (Te.x.' 

§  411—377. 
Te.xas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  iloslv  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  124  S.  W.  48.3—1502. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Nelson,  38  Te.v 

■  Civ.  App.  605 — 599. 
Te.xas  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Nicholson.  61  Tc  . 

491—149,  189.  3.50,  583,  599,  788. 
Texas  &   P.  R.  Co.  v.  Orr    (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  31  S.  W.  696—1215. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Overall,  82  Tex. 

247—1207. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Pavne  (Tex.  Ci\ . 

App.),    156   S.   W.   1126—356. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Powell,  34  Tex. 

Civ.    App.    575 — 606. 
Te.xas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Reid   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  74  S.  VV.  99 — 1592. 
Te.xas  &    P.   R.  Co.  v.  Reiss,  99  Fed. 

1006—764. 
Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Reiss,   183  U. 

S.  621—764. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Robertson,   14:i 

S.  VV.  708—200,  414. 
Texas   &    P.   R.   Co.  v.   Rnssell    (Te.x. 

Civ.   App.),  74  S.  W.  569—1202. 
Texas    &    P.    R.    Co.    v.    Sciineider,    1 

White    &    VV.    Civ.    Cas.    Ct.    Ann. 

(Tex.)    §   119—389. 
Texas  &   P.  R.   Co.  v.   Scoirgin    (Tex. 

^Civ.  App.),  90  S.  W.  .521—913. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Scott  *  Robert- 
son   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  90  S.  W.  532 

—914. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Scott  &  Co.  (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),  86  S.  VV.   l()fi.-,_7ss. 
'Jexas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Sliawnne  Cotton 

Oil  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  Ajip.).  118  S.  W 

776—929. 
Texas  &   P.  R.  Co.  v.  Sliort  Line  Ry. 

Co.,  35  Tex.  Civ.  App.  387 — 688. 
Te.xas  P.  R.  Co.  V.  Slator    (Tex.  Civ 

App.)    102  S.  W.  l.^-.n— 800. 
T.  xas  &  P.  R.  Co.  V.  Sinisflen.  31  Tex 

Civ.   App.   549,   73   S.   VV.  42 3n 

589. 


c-l 


TAHKK  OK  CASES. 
(  riie    iffiTi'iK't's   an-    1o    (lie    pa^M.) 


Toxaa  J^    \\   K.  lo.  v.  Smitli  \    Wliito, 

M  Tv\.  Civ.  App.  571 — 7SS. 
loxtts   A    P.    R.   Vo.   V.   SiivtJor    (Tpx. 

Civ.  App.)    80  S.  W.   1041— 8:10. 
li'xas  &   P.  U.  Co.  V.  Stewart.  -I'lH  U. 

S.   357 — 1570. 
Texas  &    P.   R.   Co.   v.   Stfwarl    (Tox. 

Civ.  App. I.  114  S.  W.  413— 7Sti. 
le.xas  &    P.  R.  Co.  v.  Toxas  Short    Line 
Ry.   Co..    .•^5    'IVx.    Civ.    App.    387 — 
3(511. 
Texas   &    P.    R.   Co.   v.   Turner    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.)   37  8.  W.  643—02!). 
Texas  &   P.  R.  Co.  v.  Weatherby.  41 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  400- 134(5. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Wluuton    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  145  S.  W.  -iS-i— 1420. 
Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  (52  Fed. 

440—1171. 
Texas    &    P.    R.    Co.    v.    Youngblood 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.)    132  S.  W.  808— 
846. 
Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Camcroii    (Tox. 

Civ.  App.).  140  S.  W.  700—1156. 
lexas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cauhle,  36  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  30—007. 
Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.   Finnary    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  50  S.  W.  726-408. 
Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  ITieo  Oil  Mill 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  132  S.  W.  381— 
000. 
Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hunter  i   Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.)    104  S.  W.  1075— 
822.  831. 
Texas   Cent.   R.    Co.   v.   Kerns    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  108  S.  W.  187—713. 
Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Morris.   1   Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  373—880. 
Texas    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    O'Louojlilin 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  84  S.  W.   1104— 
908. 
Texas    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    O'Loughlin 
(Tex.   Civ.   App.),   72   S.   W.   610— 
704. 
Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Perry   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.l.  147  S.  W.  305—1606. 
Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Pool  &   Smith 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  114  S.  W.  68.5— 
922. 
Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Shropsliire  (Tex. 
Civ.    App.),    125    S.    W.    360—608, 
623. 
Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  78  Tex. 
372—482.  768,  778. 


'Texas,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Alexumier    (Tex. 

Civ.  Ai)p.).  30  S.  \V.  m3~-(i0.  1257. 

Texas,  ote..   K.  Co.  v.   Anderson    ('Tex. 

C;iv.  App.).  61    S.   W.  424—1123. 
Texas,  etc.,   R.  C'o.  v.   .\ndre\vs    ('Tex. 

Civ.   App.).  80  S.  W.  300—007. 
Texas,  etc..   K.  Co.  v.  Avery,   10  'lex. 

Civ.    App.   235—153. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Avery   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  33  S.  W.  704—503,  1758. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barber  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  30  S.  W.  500—482.  ^ 
Te.xas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnhart,  5  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  601—778. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Berry,  31  Tex. 

Civ.    App.    3—1360. 
Te.xas,    etc.,    R.   Co.   v.    Best,    66   Tex. 

116—1060. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Binj^ham,  2  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  278,  67  8.  W.  522—1227. 
1244. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Black,  87  Tex. 

1(50—1021.  1058. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boggs  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  30  S.  W.  1089—345. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bond.  62  Tex. 

442—1303,  1307. 
'I  exas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  78  Tex. 

401—1601. 
Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Brown  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  37  S.  W.  78.5—750. 
Te.xas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Buchfield    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  33  S.  W.  1022—503. 
Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Byers    Bros. 
(Tex.   Civ.   App.),   73  S.  W.  427— 
815,  007. 
Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Callendar,   98 

Fed.   .538—519. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Callender,   183 

U.  S.  632—732,  766. 
Texas,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Capps,  2  Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  33—1208,  1290. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carlton,  60  Tex. 

.'i07— 122. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cau,  120  Fed. 

15.  64.5—441. 
']'exas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clayton,  173  U. 

S.  .348—387. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clayton,  51  U. 

S.  App.  676—241. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coggins.  40  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  583—599. 
Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Cole.  66  Tex. 
662—1710. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


ccli 


(The   references  are   to   the   pages.) 


Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Cook,    2    Tex. 

Civ.  App.  §  65»— 1351. 
Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Cushnv    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  64  S.  W.  795—907. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cuteman   (Tex. 

App.),  14  S.  W.  1069—190. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davidson,  3  Tex. 

Civ.   App.   542—1214. 
Texas,   etc..   R.   Co.  v.   Davis,  2   Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  191—458,  522,  587, 

878,  899. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dennis,  4  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  90—1417. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dishman  &  Trib- 

ble   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  85  S.  W.  319 

—593. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Edmond    (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    29    S.    W.    518—1167, 

1171,   1402. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  E.  R.  &  D.  C. 

Kolp   Jr.    (Tex.  Civ.   App.),   88   S. 

W.  417—606. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ferguson,  1  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  Cas.   §   1253—587,   1291, 

1296,  1297. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fort,  1  Tex.  App. 

Civ.  Cas.  §  1252—741,  1360. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  riarcia,  62  Tex. 

28.5 — 1037,  1038.  1056. 
Texas,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    Hamilton.   06 

Tex.  92—  1106,  1107,  1115,  1117. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hamm,  2  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  Cas.  §  490—149. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hardin,  62  Tex. 

,367—1083. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hawkins   (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    30    S.    W.    1113—478, 

767. 
Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hayden,  6  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  74.5—987. 
lexas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Humphries,  20 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  28—1175. 
Tr\as,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Com- 
merce Co.,  162  U.  S.  197—1754. 

1755,  1759,  1773,  1776,  1780,  1781, 

1785,  1788,  1791,  1792,  1794,  1795, 

1796,  1797,  1823,  1828,  1829. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  .Jackson,  3  Tex. 

Civ.  Aj)p.  41 — 487. 
Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  .James,  82  Tex. 

.306—1257. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  74  S.  W.  343—732. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Klcpper  (Tex. 


Civ.  App.),  24  S.  W.  567 — 478,  593, 

926. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lester,  75  Tex. 

56 — 1555. 
Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Levi,   59  Tex. 

674—595. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Logan,  3  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  186—261,  594,  770. 
'j-exas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ludlam,  57  Fed. 

481—1227. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lvnch  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),    73    S.    W.    65—755,    1391, 

1706. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lyons  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.)   50  S.  W.  161—1426. 
Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Mansell    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  23  S.  W.  549—1256. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  2  Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  342—261,  587. 
Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Mayes    (Tex. 

App.),   15  S.  W.  43—1703. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCarty,  29  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  616—907. 
Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   McDonald,    2 

Tex.   App.   Civ.   Cas.    §    163—1026, 

1258. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLean   (Tex.), 

32  S.  W.  776—1097. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  79  Tex. 

78—997,   1232,   1246. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  119  S.  W. 

697—867. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Morse,   1   Tex. 

Civ.  App.  Cas.  §  411—27. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murtishaw,  34 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  447,  78  S.  VV.  953— 

858. 
Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Nicholson,   61 

Tex.   491—153. 
Texas,  etc.,    R.   Co.   v.   Orr,   46    Ark. 

194—1544. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Overall,  82  Tex. 

247—1506,  1632. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Payne,   15  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  58—579,   61  i. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pollard,  2  Tex. 

App.   Civ.   Cas.   §   481—1233,    1702, 

1717. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pollard.  2  Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  424—1715. 
T<^xa3,  eitc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Powell,  34  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  575—860. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Handle,  18  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  351—907. 


•Hi 


iAI.l.K  UF  CAStS. 
(  I  lir    nftronci's   are    to    tlio    pages. 


To\a»,  ito..    U.  Co.   V.    Kt-a    i  I'l'x.  1.  iv. 

App.),  li5  S.  \V.   ni.">— 17U4. 
T^xtts,   eU-.,    K.    Lo.   V.    K.i.-.s.    18;{   U. 

S.   «21— 7G5. 
Texas,  etc..    K.   Co.   v.    Roiss,   W    K.-il. 

1006—240,  ;{S7. 
Texas,     eU-.,     K.     Co.     v.      Uichiunnil 

(Tex.    Civ.   App.),   «;{   S.   W.   610— 

44!).  4r)0. 
Texas,  etc..  K.  Co.  v.  Rogers   (Tomi. ), 

3  S.  W.  tiJUl — 158. 
Texaa,  e^U'.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scrivi-ner,  2  Tt'X. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  328— 5b7,  7G8. 
Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Sims   (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  26  S.  \V.  634—583. 
Texjis.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  67   Fed. 

524 — 1065. 
Texas,  eU-.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  34  Tc\. 

Civ.  App.  571—908. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Strihling   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  34  S.  W.  1102—816. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Suggs,  62  Tex. 

323—1116,  1501,  1478. 
Texas,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Talley,  2  Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.   §   765 — 617. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tankersley,  63 

Tex.  57—383. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Tarkingtoii,  27 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  353—1175. 
Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Tott,   20   Tex. 

Civ.  App.  335—1150. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weaver,  3  Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  60—413. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wheat.  2  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  Cas.  §   164—190. 
Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  White,  101  Fed. 

928—1705. 
Texas,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  White,   4   lex. 

Civ.  App.  Cas.  §  451—986. 
Texas,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   White,  4  Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  259—1069. 
Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Williams,    62 

Fed.  440—1170. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woods,  15  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  612—12.32. 
Texas,  etc..   R.  Co.  v.   Wright,  2  Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  339—587. 
Texas    Express    Co.    v.    Scott,    2   Tex. 

App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  72—527. 
Texas   Exp.    Lo.   v.   Sootrt.,    16   Am.   & 

Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  111—23,  27. 
Texas    Mexican   R.    Co.   v.   Gallagher 

(Tex.   Civ.   App.),   70   S.    W.   97— 

936. 
Texas   Mexican   Ry.   Co.   v.   Gallaghrr 


vTcx.   Civ.    App.),   64   S.    W.   800- 

yo7. 

Texas  Mexican   Hv.  Co.  v.  Reed   (  r<'\. 

Civ.    App.),    121    S.    W.    519—605, 

684,  920. 
Texas    Mexican    R.    Co.    v.    Willis,    3 

Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  71—1330. 
Texas  Midland   U.  Co.  v.  Criggs   (Ti'X. 

Oiv.  Api>. ),    106  S.  W.  411—978. 
Texas    Midland    R.    Co.    v.    Dean,    98 

Tex.  517—1185. 
Texas  Midland  R.  Co.  v.  Edwards  & 

Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  121  S.  W.  57  i 

—176,  477. 
Texas  Midland  R.  Co.  v.  Elleson  (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    87    S.    W,    213—960, 

1014. 
Texas    Midland    R.    Co.   v.    Geraidon, 

103  Tex.  402,  128  S.  W.  661—1439, 

1441. 
Texas  Midland  R.  R.  v.  Griggs   (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),   106  S.  W.  411—978. 
Texas  Midland  R.  Co.  v.  Jumper,  24 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  671—1206. 
Texas  Midland  R.  R.  v.  Monroe  (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  155  S.  W.  973—1696. 
Texas    Midland     R.    Co.    v.    Ritchi-v 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  108  S.  W.  732-^ 

1687. 
Texas  R.  Co.  v.  Ellison,  39  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  172—1005. 
Texas   Trunk   R.   Co.   v.   Johnson,   75 

Tex.   158—1723,  1725. 
Thane  v.  Scranton  Tract.  Co.,  191  Pa. 

249—1642. 
Thatcher  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co., 

1  Int.  Com.  R.  353,  1  Int.  Com.  C. 

Rep.  152—1761,  1827. 
Thatcher  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,   1  Int. 

Com.  Rep.  356—1761. 
Thatcher  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co..  4 

U.  C.  C.  P.  543—1512. 
Thayer  v.  Burchard,  99  Mass.   508 — 

136,  138,  178. 
Thayer  v.   St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.   Co..  22 

Tnd.    26 — 429,    1212,     1261,      1450, 

1460. 
The  Aberfovle.  1  Blatchf.   (U.  S.)  360 

—945. 
The    Acoomac,    15    Prob.    Div.    208 — 

520. 
Tlie  Abbi,  93  Fed.  484—2002. 
'Hie   Aggi,    107   Fed.  300—2030. 
The    Alice,    12    Fed.    490 — 601. 
The  .^line,  25   Fed.  562 — 516. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are   to  the   pages.) 


ccliii 


The  Alvcna,  79  Fed.  973—2031. 
The  Angelina  Corning,  1  Ben.  (U.  S.) 

109—56. 
The  Anthracite,   162   Fed.   384—57. 
Tlie  Arctic  Bird,  109  Fed.  167—2013, 

2033. 
Tlie   Argentina,   L.   R.    1    Adm.   Eccl. 

370—227. 
The  Bark  Edwin,  1  Sprague   (U.  S.), 

477—192. 
The  Bark  Gentleman,  1  01c.  Adm.  110 

—35. 
The  Beaconsfield,  158  U.  S.  303—531. 
The  Bermuda,  29  Fed.  399—525. 
The  Bernia,   12  Prob.  Div.  58—1269. 
The   iiird    of    Paradise,    5    Wall.    (U. 

S.)    545 — 645,  648. 
Tlie  Bitterne,   35    Fed.   927—552. 
The  Blue   Bell,    189   Fed.  824—55. 
The  Bobolink,  6  Sawy.    (U.  S.)    146— 

260. 
The  Boskenna  Bay,  40  Fed.  93—399. 
The    Brantford    Citv,    29    Fed.    373— 

451,  793. 
The  Brig  Collenberg,  1  Black   (U.  S.), 

170—34,  164,  355. 
The  Brig  May  Queen,   1  Newb.  Adm. 

465—426. 
The   Brilliant,    159    Fed.    1022—2000, 

2026. 
The  Brilliant,  138  Federal  743—2030. 
The    Britannia,    148    Fed.    495—58. 
The    British    King,    92    Fed.    1018— 

2006. 
The  Caledonia,  157  U.  S.  124—601. 
The    Caledonia,    50    Fed.    567—837. 
The  Caledonia,   43   Fed.   681 — 151. 
The  Cape  Charles,   198  Fed.  346—20. 
The    Car  lb   Prince,    170    U.    S.    655— 

1997,  2012,  2029. 
The  Carib  Prince,  63   Fed.  266 — 448. 
The  Carlos   F.  Roses,   177   U.   S.   655 

—232. 
The  Carron  Park,   15  Prob.  Div.  203 

—520. 
The  Chasca,  23  Fed.  156—553. 
Tlie    Chattahoochee,    74     Fed.    899 — 

1994. 
The  City  of  Clarksville,  94  Fed.  201 

—1990. 
The   Citv  of  Lincoln,   25   Fed.   835— 

386. 
The  Claverhiirn.   147   Fed.  850 — 2022. 
The   Col i ma,   82   F<-d.   66.5—2002. 
The  Cmninander  in-chief,   1   Wall.    (U. 
S.)    51—76. 


The  Cuba,  3  Ware   (U.  S.),  260—164. 
The  Dan   (D.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y.),  40  Fed. 

Rep.  691—76. 
The  Dana,  190  Fed.  650—2026. 
The   Daniel    Ball,    10    Wall.     (U.    S.) 

557—1734. 
The   Daniel   Burns    (D.   C.    S.   D.   N. 

Y.),  52  Fed.  Rep.   159—54. 
The  David  &  Caroline,  5  Blatchf.   (U. 

S.)    266—131. 
The  Davis,  10  Wall.   (U.  S.)    15—633. 
The  Delaware,  14  Wall.    (U.  S.)    579 

—75,  553. 
The   Denmark,  27   Fed.    141 — 525. 
The  D.   Harvev,    139   Fed.   755—2034, 
The  Drew,  15  Fed.  826—210. 
The    D.    R.    Martin,    11    Blatohf.    (U. 

S.)   233—1127,  1142,  1409. 
The  Duero,  22  L.  T.  N.  S.  37—464. 
The  Eddv,  5  Wall.   (U.  S.)   481—257, 

336,  635,  642,  645. 
The  Edwin  Terry,  162  Fed.  309,  311 — 

58. 
The  Egypt,   25    Wend.   320—1990. 
Tlie  El.  Rio,   162   Fed.  567—56. 
The    Elvira   Harbeck,    Fed.    Caa.   No. 

4,  424   (2  Bla«kf.)    336—1343. 
The  Emilinen  Marie,  32  L.  T.  N.  S. 

435—227. 
The  Emily,  5  Kan.  645—75. 
The  E.  M.  Wright,  1  Mackey  (D.  C). 

24—677. 
The  Euripides,  63  Fed.   140 — 594. 
The  Euripides,   52   Fed.   161—553. 
The  E.  V.  McCaulley,  189  Fed.  827 — 

55. 
The   Kxmoor,    163    Fed.   642 — 2014. 
The  Farmer  &  McCraw,  26  Ala.   189 

—292. 
The  Ferryboat  S.  S.  Gregory.  3  Ben. 

(U.  S.)    226—1600. 
The   Folmina,    143   Fed.    636—2020. 
The   Fort  George,    183   Fed.   731—55 
The  Freeman,  18  How.   (U.  S.)    182— 

191—229. 
The  Fri,   154  Fed.  333—2011. 
The  Garden  City,  26  Fed.  766—1991 
The  Gazelle,  128  U.  S.  474—243. 
The    Gentleman,    1    Blatchf.    (U    S  ) 
196—35. 

The     Germanic,     124    Fed.      1 1087 

1988. 
Tlie  Germanic,  107  Fed.  294—2004. 
Tlic  Gha/i'e,   171    Fed.  .368—2017. 
The    Glamorjranshire,    50    Fed     840— 
562. 


TAHLK  OF  CASKS. 
(TIio    rt'ti'ii'iioofl   are    to    tlie    pn;;o8. ) 


Ihe  (.;..l.i.n  Kill.'.  0  IV.I.  .-JIM  — r.lM?. 
The    iJol.l    Hunter.    1     I!.    &     II.    Ailin. 

;U>0 — fiSS. 
Tho  C,iHM\   Hope.    107   Fed.   149—2017. 
'Hie  (Grafton.   Oleott    (T.   S.).   43,    10 

Fed.    Ca3.    No.    fj.O.lii — "257. 
The  Grafton.   1   Blatchf.    (H.  S.)    173 

—240. 
Tlie  G.  K.  r>oi>tli.  171  U.  S.  450—2020. 

2027. 
The  G.  H.   Root.h,  01    Fed.   1G4— 2010. 
The   Guaileloui)e,    02    I'ed.   670—2007. 
The  Guiding  Star,  oS   Fed.  036—410, 

571. 
Tlie  GuildhiUl.  58  Fed.  796—432,  451, 

454. 
The  Harrison,  0  Wall.   (U.  S.)    161— 

350. 
Tl.e  Harry  M.  Wall,   187   Fed.  278— 

55. 
Tlie   Hattie   Palmer,    63    Fed.    I(il5— 

286. 
The   Henrv   B.   Hyde,   82   Fed.    681- 

2012. 
Tlie   Hudson.   172  Fed.   1005—2017. 
The    Hudson.    122— Fed.    96—2025. 
The  Hugo.  61  Fed.  860—591. 
The  Hugo.  57   Fed.  403—451.  459. 
The   Huntress.    Fed.    Cas.    No.    6,014, 

Davies   (U.  S.).  82—36,  559. 
The   Idaho.   03   U.    S.   575—209,   327, 

530,  531,  532. 
The    Indrani.    177    Fed.    914—1003. 
The  Indrapura.  178  Fed.  591—2010. 
The   Indrapura.    171    Fed.   929—1088, 

2017. 
The  Invincible,  1  Lowell  (U.  S.),  225 

553. 

The  lonie,  5   Blatchf.    (U.   S.)    538— 

523,   1283.   1294.   1300. 
The  Iowa.  50  Fed.  561—454,   1457. 
The  Isaac  Reed,  82  Fed.  506—579. 
The  Island  Queen,  Fed.  Cas  No.  7,110 

(Brown,  Adm..  279)— 1991. 
The  Jefferson.  31  Fed.  480—575. 
The  J.  P.  Donaldson,  167  U.  S.  603— 

55. 
The  Julia.  14  Moore  P.  C.  210—57. 
The  Kate.  91  Fed.  679—2000. 
The  Kensington,  183  U.  S.  263—2038. 
The  Kensington.  94  Fed.  885—2038. 
The  Kensington,  88  Fed.  331—579. 
The  Kimball,   3   Wall.    (U.   S.)    37— 

645,  648. 
The  Ladv  Franklin,  8  Wall.    (U.  S.) 

325—191,  229. 


'Hie  I.ady  Piko.  21    Wall.    (IT.  S.)    14 

—7"). 
'I'he    l.a    Kroiua.    l:!,S    Fed.   036—2015. 
The  Leader,  ISl    Fed,  743—55. 
The  T.rt>nnox.  00  Fed.  308-2021. 
The   L.    P.    Oavton,    120    U.    S.   337— 

56. 
The    Lvdia    Monarch.   23    Fed.    208— 

516.* 
The   Lvon,    1    Brown's   Adm.    (U.   S.) 

59—56. 
The   Maggie   Hammond,   9   Wall.    (U. 

S.)   435—75,  338. 
The  Maggie  M..  30  Fed.  692—552. 
The  Maine,   170  Fed.  015—2011. 
The  Maine.  101   Fed.  401—2016. 
The  Majestic.   166  U.  S.  375—1340. 
The     Majestic.     60     Fed.     624—1330, 

1451,  1453,  1455. 
The  Majestic,  56  Fed.  244—519. 
The  Mangalore,  9   Sawy.    (U.   S.)    71 

—592. 
The    Manitoba,    104    Fed.    145—1988, 

2018,  2031. 
The  Manitou.  116  Fed.  60—2001,  2018. 
The  Margaret  v.  Bliss,  94  U.  S.  494 — 

56. 
The  Martha,  35  Fed.  313—243. 
The  ]\Iarv  Ann  Guest,  1  Blatchf.   (U. 

S.)    358—329. 
The   Marv   Washington,   Chase's   Dec. 

(U.  S.)    125-398. 
The  Mary  Washington,  1  Abb.  (U.  S.) 

—386. 
The  M.  C.  Currie,  132  Fed.  125—2010. 
The  Merida,   107   Fed.   146—2008. 
The  Merrimac,  2  Sawy.    (U.  S.)    586 

—56. 
The  Mill  Boy,  4  McCrary  (U.  S.)  383 

—258. 
The  Minnehaha,  1  Lush,  335 — 57. 
The  Minnetonka,  146  Fed.  509 — 2041. 
The  Mississippi,  120  Fed.  1020—2004, 

2023. 
The  M.  M.   Chase,  37  Fed.  708—327, 

329. 
The    Morro    Castle,    168    Fed.    555— 

2040. 
The  Murrel,  200  Fed.  826—1996. 
'ITie  Naranja,   104   Fed.   160—2034. 
The  Neaffie,  1   Abb.    (U.  S.)    465—56. 
The  Neidenfels,   174   Fed.   203—2018. 
The  Nellie  Flovd,   116  Fed.  80—2030. 
The  Nettie  Quill,  124  Fid.  667—2007: 
The     New     England,    110    Fed.    415— 

1330. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


cclv 


(The   references   are   to   the   pages. 


The  New  Orleans,  26  Fed.  44—575. 
The    New    Philadelphia,    66    U.    S.    1 

(Black)   62—56. 
The   Newport  News,    199    Fed.   968 — 

2006,  2025. 
The  New  World  v.  King,  16  How.   (U. 

S.)   469—992,   1030,  1505. 
The  Niagara  v.  Cordes,  21  How.    (U. 

S.)   7,  26—75. 
The  Nieeto,    134   Fed.   655—2034. 
The  Ninfa,  156  Fed.  512—1998.  2000. 
The  Nith.  36  Fed.  86— 5S6. 
The  Nonpariel,  149  Fed.  521—80. 
The  Normannia   (D.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y.). 

62  Fed.  469—1274. 
The  Nutmeg  State,  103  Fed.  797—420. 
Theobald  v.  Railway  Pass.  Assur.  Co., 

10  Exch.  4.5 — 1011. 
The  Oconto,  5  Biss.   (U.  S.)   460—56. 
The  Olvmpia,  61  Fed.  120—821. 
The  Oneida,  128  Fed.  687—2002. 
The  Oneida,  108  Fed.  886—2009. 
The    Ontario,     106     Fed.     324—2008, 

2032. 
The  Orcadian,  116  Fed.  930—2024. 
The   Oregon,    Deady     (U.    S.),    179— 

192 
The  Oregon,  133  Fed.  609—1037. 
The  OriHamme,  3  Sawy.    (U.  S.)    397 

—1211.  1261,  1715.  1717,  1727. 
The  Pacific,  1  Blatchf.   (U.  S.)  569— 

945. 
The  Pacific,  Deady   (U.  S.),  17—426. 
The  Palmas.  108  Fed.  87—2004. 
The  Pawnee,  205  Fed.  333—76. 
The    Persiana,    185    Fed.    396—1988, 

2032. 
The  Portuense,  35  Fed.  670 — 553. 
The  Princeton,  3  Blatchf.   (U.  S.)   54 

—56. 
The  Printer,  1G4  Fed.  314—58. 
The  Priscilla,   106   Fed.   739—1353. 
The  Propeller   Burlington,   137   U.   S. 

38r — 55. 
The  Propeller  Commerce,  1  Black  (U. 

S.).  5S2— 75. 
The  Propeller  Mohawk,   8  Wall.    (U. 

S.)   15.3—272. 
The  Propeller  Niagara  v.   Cordes,  21 

How.   (U.  S.)   7—24,  35. 
The  Pru.'ssia,  93  Fed.  837-2029. 
The  Prussia.  88  Fed.  .'')31— 2013. 
The  Qurf^n,  78  Fed.   155—2033. 
The  Qu"on   of   the    Fa;; lie,    ISO   U.   S. 
49—2033. 


The  Quickstep,  9   Wall.    (U.   S.)    665 

—56. 
The    Rappahannock,    173    Fed.    829— 

2027. 
The  Reliance,  4  Woods  (U.  S.),  420— 

1505. 
Thero  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,   144 

Mo.  App.  161—360,  843. 
The  Rover,  161   Fed.  864—77. 
The    Roval    Soeptre,    187    Fed.    224— 

2016.* 
The  Samuel  E.  Spring.  29  Fed.  397— 

570. 
The    Sandfield,    92    Fed.    663—2006, 

2029. 
The  Saratoga,  20  Fed.  869—1457. 
The  Saugerties,  44  Fed.  625—231. 
The  Schooner  Anne,  1  Mason  (U.  S.) , 

512—638. 
The  Schooner  Volunteer,  1  Sumn.   (U. 

S.)    551—648. 
The     Seaboard,    119    Fed.    375—2018, 

2024. 
The  Seneca,  163  Fed.  591—2010. 
The  Seven  Brothers  No.   1,  203   Fed. 

21—2034. 
The  Severn,  113  Fed.  578—1122. 
The  Silvia,  171  U.  S.  462—1994,  2005. 
The  Silvia.  68  Fed.  230—1988. 
The  Siren,  7  Wall.   (U.  S.)    152—633. 
The  St.  Cuthbert,  97  Fed.  340—2015. 
The  Steamboat  American,  8  Ben    (U. 

S.),  491—35. 
The  Steamboat  F.  X.  Aubury,  28  111. 

412—1148. 
The  Steamboat  Lynx  v.  King,  12  Mo. 

272—35. 
The  Steamboat  New   World  v.   King, 
16   How.    (U.   S.)    469—992,    1030, 
1505. 
The   Steamboat  Sultana  v.  Chapman, 

5  Wis.  454—207,  459. 
The    Steamer    New    Philadelphia,     1 

Black   (U.  S.),  62—1269. 
Tlie  Steamer  Webb,  14  Wall.   (U.  S.) 

406—56. 
The  St.  Hubert,  102  Fed.  362—488. 
The  St.  Quentin,  162  Fed.  883—2013, 

2022. 
The   Stranger,    1    Brown's   Adm.    (U. 

S.)   281—56. 
The  Strathairly,  124  U.  S.  558—1144. 
The  Strathdon.  94  Fed.  206—2036. 
The    Stratlidon,    89     Fed.    374—1996, 
2007,  2019. 


VL'lV 


Ivi 


TABLE  OF  CASKS. 
(Tlif    n'foronci's   ixio    to    tlic    pn^oa.) 


riie  Slvriii.  101    Fed.  T'iS— -2012.  2022. 
Th.'  Sum'ss.  7   Hlutilif.  (V.  S.)  551— 

104. 
riu'  Sue.  22  F»'(l.  S43— 1143. 
Tlu'  Sultana  v.  Cluvpinan,  5  Wis.  4r)4 

—207.  451). 
The  Tainpico.    l.M    Fod.   (IS!)— 2011. 
The  Tonodos.   151    Fed.    1022— 1!)0!). 
Tho  Tham.'s.    14    Wall.    (U.   S.)    98— 

210,  227. 
The   Thomas    Nowton.   41    Fed.    lOtl — 

:n4. 

The  Titania.  KU    Fed.  220-272. 
The  Titania.   124  Fed.  975—197. 
The  Tjonio,  115  Fed.  919—2031. 
The  Toront<\    174    Fed.  632—2017. 
The  Toronto,   108   Fed.  380—2018. 
The  Trignae,   109   Fed.   682—2026. 
The  Valencia.  110  Fed.  221—2042. 
The   Vauphan.    14   Wall.    (U.  S.)    258 

—590. 
The  Warren  Adams,  38  U.  S.  A  pp.  356 

—1475. 
The  Wa-sco.  53  Fed.  546—986. 
Th-  Washington,  9  Wall.   (U.  S.)   513 

—1717. 
The  Westminster,  127  Fed.  680—2033. 
The  Whitlieburn,  8:-   Fed.  526—2004. 
The  Wildcroft,  130  Fed.  521—2005. 
The  Wiidenfels,  161   Fed.  864—77. 
The    William    Crane,    50    Fed.    444— 

553. 
The  Willis  D.  Sandhoval,  92  Fed.  286 

—174. 
The    Zenobia.    1    Abb.   Adm.   48—945, 

1707. 
Thirtei'ntii.   etc., 

Houdrou.    92 

1040.  1644. 
Thixton's  Ex'r  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co., 

29  Ky.  Law  Rep.  910—1195. 
Thomas  v.  Boston   Elevated   Ry.,   193 

Mass.  438—1493. 
Thomas  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.   Corp..    10 

Mete.    (Mass.)    472—41,   202.    252, 

380.  774,  1449,   1492. 
Thomas  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 

S.  C.  485—1255. 
Thomas    v.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co..    72 

Mach.  35.5—1058.   1423,  1424. 
Thomas  v.  Citizens  Pass.  Ry.  Co.,  132 

Pa.  St.  504—1507. 
Thomas  v.  Frankfort,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116 

Kv.    879.   25    Kv.    Law   Rep.    879 — 

026.  627.  638.  660,  686.  739. 


St.   Pass.   R.   Co.   V. 
Pa.    St.    475—1567, 


riiomas  V.   Croat  Wost.Mn   R.   Co.,   14 

I  .  C.  Q.  B.  389—1293. 
Thomas    v.    Lancaster    Mills.    71    Fed. 

481—119,  319.  357,  412,  454,  518. 
Thomas  v.  Northern  Pae.  Express  Co., 

73  iMinn.  18.5—210,  2S1.  328. 
Thomas  v.  North  StafTordsliire  R.  Co., 

3  Hy.  &  V.  T.  Cas.  1  —  117,  126.  239. 
Thomas  v.  Pacific  Express  Co.,  30  Mo. 

App.  86—236. 
Thomas  v.   Philadelphia,  etc.,   R.  Co  . 

148  Pa.  St.   180—1475,   1477. 
Thomas  v.  Ray,  4  Esp.   N.   P.  262— 

193. 
Thomas  v.  Snyder,  39  Pa.   St.  317— 

672,  674. 
Thomas  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  122  N.  C. 

1005—1229. 
Thomas    v.    United    States.    156    Fed 

897-1959. 
Thomas   v.   Wabash,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   0.? 

Fed.  200—119,    137.   341,  412,   441, 

448. 
Thomas  v.  Winchester,  6  N.  Y.  397— 

563. 
Thomas,    etc.,    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Wabash. 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Wis.  642—261,  589, 

,594,  619. 
Thomas  Phillips   Co.  v.  Erie  Ry.,  27 

Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  R.  486—700.  702. 
Thompkins    v.    Boston    Elevated    Ry. 

Co.,  201  Mass.  114 — 960. 
Thompkins  v.  Saltmarsh,  14  S.  &  R. 

(Pa.)    275—5. 
Thompson   v.  Belfast,  etc.,   R.  Co..   5 

Jr.  R.  C.  L.  517—1246. 
Thompson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27 

Iowa,  561—455,  560. 
Thompson    v.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co. 

(Iowa),  139  N.  W.  ,557—825,  853. 
Thompson  v.  Duncan,   76  Ala.   334 — 

1,544,  16.32. 
Thompson   v.   Fargo,  49  N.  Y.   188— 

244. 
Thompson     v.     Hamilton,     12     Pick. 

(Mass.),  42.5—76. 
Thompson   v.    Manhattan    R.   Co.,   75 

Hun    (N.  Y.)    548—1194. 
Thompson  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  122  Ala. 

378—351. 
Thompson   v.   Nashville,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

160  Ala.  590-908. 
Thompson    v.    New    Orleans,   etc.,    R. 

Co..  .50  Miss.  315—1233,  1256. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references  are  to   the   pages.) 


cclvii 


Thompson  v.  New  York  Storage  Co., 

97  Mo.  App.  135—114. 
Thompson  v.  Quincv,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  136 

Mo.  App.  404—361,  840. 
Thompson   v.    Small,    1    C.    B.    328— 

243. 
Thompson  v.  Southern   Pac.  Co.,   121 

La.    994—916. 
Thompson  v.  Trail,  2  C.  &  P.   334— 

214. 
Thompson  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 

64    Wis.    531—91. 
Thompson  v.  Williams,  30  Kan.  114 — 

531. 
Thompson  v.  Winslow,  128  Fed.  73 — 

2035. 
Thompson   v.   Yazoo,   etc.,  R.   Co..   47 

La.   Ann.    1107-980,    1031,    1033. 
Thompson  v.   Yazoo,   etc..   R.  Co.,   72 

Miss.  715—1425. 
Thompson-Houston     Electric     Co.     v. 

Simon.  20  Ore.  60—24,  43,  49,  .50. 
Thorne  v.  Deas,  4  Johns    (N.  Y.)    84 

Thorne  v.  Tilburv,  3  Hurl.  &  N.  534 

—533. 
Thorogood   v.   Bryan,   8   C.   B.    131— 

1269. 
Thorp  V.  Concord   R.  Co.,  61    Vt.  378 

—10.39. 
Thorp  V.  Hammond,  12  Wall.   (U.  S.) 

408-1451. 
Thorpe  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

76  X.  Y.  402—681,  945,  1155,  1156, 

1266. 
I'hree  Hundred,  etc..  Tons  of  Coal,  14 

Blatchf.    (U.  S.)   453—118. 
Thurber   v.    Harlem    Bridge,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  60  X.  Y.  326—1587,  1588,  1633. 
I'hurber  v.   Xew   York   Cent.,  etc..   R. 

Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  R.  742—1781.  1789. 
Thurman  v.  Wells,  18  Barb.   (N.  Y.) 

500—29. 
Thurston  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  4  Dill. 

(U.  S.)   321—1138,  1141,  1407. 
Thweatt  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Te.x. 

Civ.  App.)   71  S.  W.  976—1191. 
Thyll  V.   Xew  York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   92 

App.   Div.    (X.  Y.)    513 — 461,   569, 

773,  775. 
I  lull   V.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   84 

X.  Y.  Supp.   175—765. 
Tibbits  V.  Rock  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 

111.   .App.  .567—521. 


Tibbs   V.    Cleveland,    etc.,   R.   Co.,   20 

Ind.  App.  192—206. 
Tibby  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  82  Mo. 

292—1033,  1037,  1450. 
Tickell  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  149 

Mo.  App.  648—1526,  1635. 
Tierney  v.  New  York  Cent.,   etc.,  R. 

Co.,   76  N.   Y.   305—130,    138,   316, 

354,  355,  550. 
Tierney  v.  New  Y'ork  Cent.,   etc.,  R. 

Co.,  10  Hun  (N.  Y.)  569—130,  138, 

139. 
Tietz  V.  International  Ry.  Co.,  186  N. 

Y.  34—1158. 
Tiffany  v.   St.  John,   65  N.  Y.  314— 

645,  646. 
Tift   V.    Southern   Ry.   Co.,    138    Fed. 

753—655,  656,  711,  712. 
Tift   V.   Southern   Ry.   Co.,    123    Fed 

789—156,  716,  1876. 
Tiles  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149  Mass. 

204—1572. 
Tiller   &    Smitli   v.   Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  142  Iowa,  309,  112  N.  W.  631— 

841,  940. 
Tillery  v.  Bond.  38  Fed.  825 — 1257. 
Tilley  v.  Cook  Countv,  103  U.  S.  155 

—146. 
Tilley  v.  Norfolk  &   W.  Rv.  Co.    (N. 

C),  77  S.  E.  994—179. 
Tillman  v.  St.  Louis  Tr.  Co.,  102  Mo 

App.  553—1213. 
Tilton    V.    Philadelphia    Rap.    Trans. 

Co..  231   Pa.  63—1521. 
Timnis    v.    Old    Colony    St.    Ry.    Co. 

(Mass.),  66  N.  E.  797 — 1224. 
Timpson  v.  Manliattan  R.  Co.,  52  Hun 

(N.  Y.)    489—997,  1125. 
Timpson  v.  IManliattan  R.  Co.,  1  N.  Y. 

Supp.  673—1556. 
Tindall  v.  Taylor,  4  El.  &  Bl.  219 

634. 
Tingley    v.    Long    Island    R.    Co.,    109 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   79,3—1018. 
Tinney  v.   New  Jersey  Steambot  Co., 

5  Lans.  (N.  Y.)  ,'",07-1729. 
Tippecanoe  Loan  &  Trust  Co.  v.  Jes- 
ter   (Ind.   App.),   101   N.   E.   915— 

103. 
Tirrell  v.  Gage,  4  Allen   (Mass.)   251 

—350. 
Tishomingo    Sav.    Inst.    v.    Johnson 

Xesbit    &   Co.,    146   Ala.    691—27?' 

.■■)36.  ' 


c<.'h  la 


TAI5LE  OF  CASES. 
(The   lofoienecs   arc   to   the   pugou. ) 


Tobin   V.   Omnibus   Cable   Co.    (Cal.), 

34  Pao.  l'_M— i:.()S. 
Todd   V.    Missouri    rue.   Ky.   Co.,    126 

Mo.  App.  (iS4— ir.24. 
Todd    V.   Old    Colony,    etc..    H.    Co..    7 

Alloa      (Mass.)      207—1032,      1G42, 

l(5r)5. 
Todd  V.  Old   Colony,  etc.,   R.  Co.,   85 

Mass.     (3    Allon),    18—1031,    1032, 

1033.  l.")00.  1(542. 
TolohostiT    Bcarh    Imp.  Co.   v.   Scliar- 

na-^l.  10;-)  Md.  10!)- llSf). 
Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V.    Aml)acli,    10 

Ohio  C.  C.  490—1301,  1375. 
Toledo,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Apperson,   49 

111.  480—1083,  1116. 
Toledo,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Baddoley.  64  111. 

19—1237.  1240.  1247,  1716,  1717. 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beery,  31  Iiid. 

App.  556 — 836. 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Bejros.  85   111. 

80—1016.    1031,    1034,    1106,    1119, 

1450,    1463,   1465,    1505,    1512. 
Toledo,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Boaz,  130   111. 

App.   17—872. 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bowler  &  B.  Co., 

63  Ohio  St.  274—1365. 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brooks,  81  111. 

245—988,  992,  1016,  1017,  1031, 

1059. 
Toledo,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Conrov,  68  111. 

560—1082. 
Toldco,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Durkin,  76  111. 

395—905. 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  76  111. 

67—544. 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gilviii.  81   III. 

511—188. 
Toledo,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Grablc,  88  111. 

441—1588. 
Toledo,   etc..   R.   Co.  v.   Hamilton,   76 

111.  393—805,  819. 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hammond.   33 

Ind.  379—1292,  1293,  1295,  1351. 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kickler,  52  111. 

157—585. 
Toledo,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Kid,  29  111.  App. 

353—1711. 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Levy,  127  Ind. 

168 — 438. 
Toledo,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Lockhart,   71 

111.    627—602.    616,   743. 
Toledo,  et''.,  R.  Co.  v.  Marsh,  17  Ohio 

Cir.  Ct.  Rep.  379—1434. 


Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McDonough,  53 

Md.  289— 1416,  1712. 
Toledo,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Merriman,  62 

111.  123—756. 
Toledo,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.   Patterson,   63 

111.  304—1423,  1429,  1713. 
Toledo,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Pence,  68  111. 

.■).{4— 1135. 
Toledo,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v.    Pennsylvania 

Co.,  54   Fed.  730—733,   1960. 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Roberta,  71  HI. 

540—146,  610. 
Toledo,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v.   Tapp,   6   Ind. 

App.  304—1348,  1356. 
Toledo,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  71 

111.  434—805,  819,  823. 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wingate  (Ind.) 

37  N.  E.  274—1678. 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wren,  78  Ohio 

St.  137—590,  704,  719. 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wright,  68  Ind. 

586—1427,   1428,   1258,   1390. 
Toledo,  etc.,  Traction   Co.  v.  McFall. 

28  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  R.  362—1594. 
Toledo  Produce  Exch.  v.  Lake  Shore. 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Int.  Com.  Rep.  830— 

1794. 
Tolraan  v.  Abbott,  78  Wis.  192—744. 

768. 
Tolman  v.   Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   98 

N.   Y.    198—1542. 
Tomlinson  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 

107  N.  C.  327—1721. 
Tompkins    v.    Boston    Elev.    Ry.,    201 

Mass.  114—1005,  1074,  1575. 
Tompkins  v.  Clay  St.  R.  Co.,  66  Cal. 

163—1269. 
Tompkins  v.   Saltmarsh,   14   S.   &   R. 

(Pa.)   275—11. 
Toohy   V.    McLean,    199    Mass.    466 — 

1096,  1612. 
Tooker  v.  Gormer,  2  Hilt   (N.  Y.)   71 

262—264. 
Toomey  v.   Deleware,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   2 

Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)  82—1183. 
Topeka  City  R.  Co.  v.  Higgs,  38  Kan. 

375 — 49,    1131,    1215,    1220,    1644, 

1641,   1646. 
TopliflF  V.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 

Ohio  N.  P.  297—630. 
Topp  V.  United  Rys.  &  E.  Co.,  99  Md. 

630—1681. 
Torpey  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  20  U. 

C.  Q.  B.  446—958. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


cclix 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Torpey  v.  Williams,  3  Daly    (N.  Y.) 

162—1294,  1295,  1350,  1361. 
Torrey   v.   Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    147 

Mass.  412—1638,  1642. 
Tousey  v.   Roberts,   114  N.  Y.   312— 

100. 
Towes  V.  North  German  Lloyd  S.  S. 

Co.,  186  N.  Y.  151—2040,  2041. 
Towles  V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

83  S.  C.  501—622. 
Town  of  South  Ottawa  v.  Perkins,  94 

U.  S.  260— 3S9. 
Townsend  v.  Binghampton  R.  Co.,  57 

App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  234—1619,  1639. 
Townsend  v.  Houston  Elec.  Co.   (Tex. 

Civ.   App.),   154   S.   W.   629—1607, 

1699. 
I'ownsend    v.    New   York    Cent.,    etc., 

Co.,  56  N.  Y.  295—1415,  1416. 
I'ownsend  &  Wyatt  Dry  Goods  Co.  v. 

United  States  Express  Co.,  133  Mo. 

App.  683—514. 
Township   of   Elmwood  v.  Marcy,   92 

U.  S.  289—389. 
Tozer  v.  United  States,  52  Fed.  917— 

1797,  1828. 
Trabing  v.  California  Nav.,  etc.,  Co., 

121  Cal.  137—1184. 
Trace  v.  Pennsylvania,  26  Pa.  Super. 

Ct.  466—793',  895. 
Tracey  v.   New  York,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  9 

Bosw.    (N.  Y.)    396—1068. 
Tracy  v.  Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.,  80  Mo. 

App.  389—928. 
Tracy  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.,  67 

How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)    154—63.  66. 
'I'racy  v.  'I'rov,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  N.  Y. 

433—1104." 
Tracy  v.  Troy,  etc..  R.  Co.,  55  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)   229—1104. 
Tracy  v.  Wood,  3  Mason   (U.  S.)    132 

—5. 
Trad  v.   Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  26  Pa. 

Super.  Ct.  466-896. 
Tradewell  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Co., 

150  Mis.  2r)0— 1905. 
Trakas  v.  Charleston  &  W.  C.  Ry.  Co., 

87  S.  C.  206—356. 
Trammell  v.  Clyde  Steamship  Co.,  5 

Int.  Com.  Rep.  324—1775. 
Trammell  v.  Clyde  Steamship  Co.,  4 

Int.  Com.  Rep.  120—1829. 
Trapli.Tgen    v.   Erie   R.   Co.,   73   N.   J. 

Tyaw  7.'')0—  1 1  n . 


Travers  v.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  63  Mo. 

421—1148,   1426. 
Travis    v.    Thompson,    37    Barb.    (N. 

Y.)    236—661. 
Travis  v.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  79  N. 
J.   L.   83,    74   Atl.   444—501,    1903, 
1915,  1916. 
Traynick  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  71  S.  C. 

g2 g22 

Treadwell  v.  Whittier,  80  Cal.  574— 

102,  1094,  1114,  1120,  1211. 
Trea*    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    131 

Mass.  371—1633. 
Treteven  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  89 

Wis.  598—7,  179,  412. 
Trent   v.    Casterville    Bridge    Co.,    11 

Leigh    (Va.),  544—59. 
Trent  Nav.   Co.  v.   Wood,   3   Esp.   N. 

P.   127—53. 
Treiwell  v.  Seaboard.  Air  Line  Ry.,  5 

Ga.  App.  532—1275. 
Trevor  v.  U.  &  S.  R.  Co.,  7  Hill   (N. 

Y.),  47—172. 
Trexler  v    Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co.,  28 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  207—894. 
Trexler  v.  Baltimore  &  O.  R.  Co.,  28 

Pa.  Super.   Ct.   198—856. 
Trice  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 

W.  Va.  271—1418. 
Trice  v.   Railroad  Co.,  49  Mo.  438 — 

1104. 
Trigg   V.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   74 

Mo.    147—1256,    1702,    1704,    1709, 

1710,  1718. 
Trimble  v.  New  York  Cent.,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,  162  N.  Y.  84—538,  1299,  1336. 

1345,  1376. 
Trimble  v.  New  York  Ctent.,   etc.,  R. 

Co.,   39    App.   Div.    (N.   Y.)    403— 

572,  1341. 
Trinity    &    B.    V.    Ry.    Co.    v.    Smith 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  155  S.  W.  361— 

1607. 
Trinity   &   S.   R.   Co.   v.   O'Brien,    18 

Tex.    Civ.   App.    690—1200. 
Trinity,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.     Crawford 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  146  S.  W.  329— 

807. 
Trinity     Valley    R.    Co.     v.     Stewart 
(Tex.  Oiv.  App.).  62  S.  W.   1085— 

958,   1046. 
Trolan    v.   New   York   Cent.,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,   31    App.   Div.    (N.   Y.)    320— 
1466. 
Trotlinger  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 


CVIX 


TA15LE  01-   CASES, 
('l'\\e    roll  rciu-cs   an-    lo    tlio    paj^os.) 


2:5   I'oiin.    "jOo 
R.   Co.,  24    U. 


Co..    11    i.«M    ciVmi.t.   r.n:]— ossi. 

1071.  1230. 
Trotti«>r  v.   Heil  Uivor    Traiisp.  Co.,  T. 

W  ihkI    (MiinitoUi),  25.") — G.'JT. 
i  rout    &    Nt'wUiMiy    v.    (Iiilf,    oti.,    R. 

Co.    (T.x.    Civ. 'App.),    Ill    S.    VV. 

220—841.   8517. 
Trout  V.  Wiilkins  Livery  &  riuicrt-iik- 

ing  Co.,   148   .Mo.  App.  »i21.    i:!0   S. 

W.   131)— !»4tj,   1271. 
Tix>wbridgt  v.   Cliapin. 

—  172,  185,  1S(). 
Troy  V.  Vermont,  ett., 

Sl  487—1507. 
Troy  Board  of  Trade  v.  Alabama  Mid- 
land   Kv..   4    Int.   Com.   Rep.   34S — 

1853. 
Truax  v.  Piiiladt-lpliia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Houst.      (DA.)     233—33,    36,      136, 

130,    146.    172,    175,    183,    185,    242, 

343,  359,  454,  535,  739. 
True  V.  International  Tel.  Co.,  60  Me. 

9—90. 
Truex  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  4  Lans.   (X.  Y.) 

108—944,  1267. 
Trumbull  v.  Erickson,  97  Fed.  891— 

1596.   1631. 
luoker   v.   Buffalo   Ry.   Co.,   53    App. 

Lhv.   (X.  Y.)   571—1657. 
Tucker  v.  Hou.'iatonic  R.  Co.,  39  Conn. 

447—286. 
Tucker   v.   New   York   Cent.,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,  124  .N.  Y.  308—1588. 
Tucker  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  50  Mo.  385 

—838. 
Tucker    v.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    1 1 

Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    366—151,  316. 
Tucker  v.  Rhode  Island  Co.    (R.   I.), 

68  Atl.  850—1091. 
Tuckennan   v    Brown,    17    Barb.    (X. 

Y.)    191—75,  76. 
Tufrgle  V.   St.  I>ouis,  etc..   R.   Co.,   62 

Mo.  425—486. 
Tugman  v.  National  S.  S.  Co.,  76  X. 

Y.  207—669. 
Tulev  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Mo. 

App.    4.32—1506.    1620. 
TuUer  v.  Talbot,  23  111.  .357—1132. 
Tunnev  v.   Midland  R.  Co..  L.  R.   11 

C.  P.  291—1063. 
Turlov  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Ry.  Co..   127 

Oa."  504—1686. 
Turner  v.  London.  <"tc.,  R.  Co.   L.   H. 

17  Eq.  .561—1228. 


U'liriH'r   V.   Xortli    Carolina    U.   Co.,   63 

X.  C.  522— HiOO. 
Turner  v.   Soutlu-rn   Hv.,  75  S.  C.  68 

—  1386. 
Turm-r   v.   Si.    Ixjuis,  etc..    l\.   Co.,   2.0 

Mo.   Ai)p.  632—538. 
Turney    v.    WiNou,    7    Veig    (Tiiin.), 

340—25,    27,    72,    671. 
Turrentine    v.     Wilmington,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  100  N.  C.  375—381,  410. 
Tuthill    V.    Long    Island    R.    Co.,    81 

Hun    (N.   Y.),   616—1717. 
Tutt  v.   Ide   Fed.   Cas.   No.    14,275   b. 

(3  Blaklif.  249)— 712. 
Tuttle    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    48 

Iowa,   236—1494. 
Tuttlo  V.   Cincinnati,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  26 

Ky.  Law  Rep.   152—1405,   1447. 
Twiss    V.    Boston    Elev.    Ry.   Co.,    208 

iMass.    108—1275.   1577,   1650. 
Twomlev  v.  Central  Park,  etc.    R.  Co., 

69  N."^  Y.   158—1565,    1581.  ' 
Tyler  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   1   C.  & 

E.  285—333. 
Tyler  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Tt-x.  Civ. 

App.),   79   S.   W.   1075—1214. 
Tvler  V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  60 

111.  421—87,  91. 
Tyndale  v.  Tavlor    4  El.  &  Bl.  219— 

222. 
Tyrrell   v.  P:astern  R.  Co.,   Ill  Mass. 

548—1099. 


u. 

Uber   V.    Chicago,    etc.,    Ry.    Co.,    151 

Wis.   431—323,   556,   1905. 
Udell    V.    Citizens'    St.    Ry.    Co.,    152 

Ind.  507—965. 
Udell  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  13  Mo. 

App.  254—151,  550. 
Uggla   V.   West   End   St.   R.   Co.,    160 

Mass.  351—1508. 
Ullman   v.   Cliicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   112 

Wis.    108—421,  439,  44-5,  459,  496. 
Ulrioh  V.  X"ew  York  Cent..  R.  Co.,  108 

X".  Y.  80—68,  1449,  1465. 
Unger   v.    Forty-Second    St.,    ertc,    R. 

Cio..    51    N.    Y.     497—1081,     1125, 

1216. 
Union    Express    Co.    v.    Graham,    26 

Ohio    St.    59.-)— 128,    457,    559,    577, 

570. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


cclxi 


(The   references   are   to   the  pages.) 


Union    Expi-ess    Lo.    v.    Ohleman,    92 

Pa.  St.  323—381. 
Union  Express   Co.  v.  Shoop,   85   Pa. 

St.  325—637. 
Union   Insurance   Co.   v.   Smith,    124 

U.  S.  424—1562. 
Union  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Indianapolis, 

etc.,  R.   Co.,   1   Disney    (Ohio),  480 

—427,  577. 
Union  Packet  Co.  v.  Clough,  20  Wall. 

(U.  S.)    528—992. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  American  Smelt- 
ing &  Refining  Co.,  202  Fed.  720 — 

673. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  163  U.  S.  589—1750. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Evans,  52  Neb. 

50—1603. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  91  U.  S. 

343—123. 
Union   Pac.   R.   Co.  v.   Hand,   7   Kan. 

380—1082,    1554,   1729. 
Union  Pac.  R.   Co.  v.  Harris,   158   U. 

S.  326—1100. 
Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Harwood,    31 

Kan.  388—1107. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hause,  1  Wyom- 
ing, 27—1702,    1723.   1724. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hepner,  3  Colo. 

App.  313—193,  568. 
Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.   Johnston,    45 

Xeb.  57—215. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Marston,  30  Neb. 

241—432. 
Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Mitchell     56 

Kan.  324—1425. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Moyer,  40  Kan. 

184—396. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Nichols,  8  Kan. 

505—986,   1054. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Oregon  &  Wash- 
ington   Lunrber    Mfrs.    Assn.,    165 

Fed.  13—1880. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Rainey,  19  Colo. 

225,  34  Pac.  986 — 42,  346,  454    793 

804,  821. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Roeser    (Neb.), 

95  \.  W.  68—1655. 
Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Stupwk,    50 

Colo.  151— .506. 
Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Sue.    25    N<-b 

772—1235. 
Union   Pac.    H.   Co.   v.  Thompson,   7r, 

Neb.  464 — 886. 


Union  Pac.  R.   Co.  v.  United  States, 

117   U.   S.   355—1791. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 

2  Wy.   170—632. 
Union   Pac.   R.   Co.   v.   Updike  Grain 

Co.,  222  U.  S.  215—1809. 
Union   Pac.   R.   Co.   v.   Updike   Grain 

Co.,     178     Fed.     223—1779,     1801, 

1809,  1893. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  3  Colo. 

App.  526 — 584. 
Union  R.  Co.,  etc.  v.  Traule,  59  Mo. 

355—582. 
Union   R..   etc.,   Co.   v.   Ghacklett,    19 

111.  App.   145—1036. 
Union  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Riegel,  73  Pa. 

St.  72—263,  437. 
Union    tSteamboat   Co.    v.   Knapp,    73 

111.  506—257. 
Union    Stock    Yards    Co.    v.    Hoven- 

camp    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),   144  S.   W. 

704—850.  867. 
Union   Stock   Yards   Co.   v.   Westcott, 

47  Neb.  300—225. 
Unionville    Produce    Co.    v.    Cliicago, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    168    Mo.    App.    168— 

364. 
Unique  Shipping  Co.  v.  J.  M.  Guffev 

Petroleum  Co.,  169  Fed.  905—2025. 
United      Fruit      Co.      v.      Baltimore 

Transp.  Co.,  104  Md.  567—196,  394. 
United  Fruit  Co.  v.  New  York  &   B. 

T.    Co.,    104   Md.    567—385. 
United  Lead  Co.  v.  Lehigh  Vallev  R. 

Co.,  141  N.  Y.  Siipp.  310— 501, '502, 

503. 
United    Ry.,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Beidleman 

(Md.).  52  Atl.  91.3—1487. 
United    Rys.,    etc.,    Co.   v.    Rilev,    109 

Ind.  .327—1654. 
United  Ry..  etc.,  Co.  v.  State   (Md.), 

49  Atl.  92.5—1194. 
United    Rys.    &    Elcc.    Co.    v.    Hertel 

(Md.).   55   Atl.   428—1072. 
Unit-ed    Rys.    &    Elec.    Co.    v.    W^ood- 

bridge   (Md.),  55  Atl.  444—1151. 
United  Statrs  v.  A<l:ims  Express  Co 

229  U.  S.  381—1979. 
United  States  v.  Addvston  Pipe  &  S. 

Co.,  85  Fed.  271—1831. 
United    Sfiates    v.    American    Express 

Co..   199   Fed.  321-1778. 
Unit"d    Stafce<»    v.    Atchison,    etc      R 

'  'X.  185  Fed.  105—810. 


cclxii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(  I  lie    it'fnoiK'oa   are   to    the    paj»e8.) 


L  uiU\l    SUiU's    V.    AtA'liis<.)n.    <'U'.,    R. 

Co.,   lllG    Fed.   11)0— SIO,  811,   IWJ:. 
United    States    v.    AUliison.    etc.,    R. 

Co.,   1G3    Fed.    111  —  1901),    1!»70. 
Lnit*yl    SIaU's   v.   Ualtiiuoic   &    O.   R. 

Co.,      105     Fed.     113— 18l;{,     ISIS, 

1819,   1820. 
Unitod   StaU«   v.    l^ltinioiv  &  0.   R. 

Co..    154    Fed.    108— 1S13,    1819. 
Unitvd    Stut^vs   V.    Baltimore   &    0.   R. 

Co.,    153    Fed.    997- 1870,    1905. 
United   StaU's   v.   BiUtimore,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,   159   Fed.   33—1940.    1982. 
UnitiNd  St;ites  v.  Bethlehem  Steel  Co., 

184    Ftxi.   546—1977. 
UnitA^l  St4vt<>s  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

15    Feil.   209—820. 
United  States  v.  Buncli,  165  Fed.  730 

—  1947,   1951. 
United     States    v.     Burlington,     etc., 

Ferry  €o.,  21  Fed.  331—1731. 
United  Stsites  v.  Canidin  Iron  Works, 

150  Fed.  214—1953,   1961,   1903. 
United    Static    v.    Central     Vermont 

Ry.,   157   Fed.  291—1947,   1972. 
United  States  v.  Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co., 

148  Fed.  046—1772,   1815,  1816. 
United  States  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

184  Fed.  984—811,   1985. 
United  States  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

103   Fed.   114 — 1834. 
United  States  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

151  Fed.    84 — 1942,     1951,      1962, 
1908,    1975,   1976. 

United  States  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

149  Fed.  486—1738. 

United  States  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 

127   Fed.   785—1793. 
Unit<.>d  States  v.  Clark,  164  Fed.  75— 

1959. 
United  States  v.  Cobb,   163   Fed.  791 

—2014. 
United   States   v.   Colorado  &   N.   W. 

R.  Co.,  157  Fed.  321—1956. 
United  States  v.  De  Coursey,  82  Fed. 

302-1949,   1904. 
Uniti^d   Stati-s  v.  Delaware  &  H.  Co., 

213  U.  S.  366—1863. 
United  States  v.  Delaware  &  H.  Co., 

164  Fed.  215 — 1860. 
United    States    v.    D<'laware,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  206  Fed.  513—1982. 
United   States    v.    DelaAvare.   etc.,    R. 

Oo.,     152     Fed.     269—1817,     1945. 

1968,  1975. 


UnittMl    Static    v.    Delaware,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  40  Fed.   101  —  1785,  1788,  1790, 

1793,   1798,  1823,   1824. 
United  States  v.  East  T<'niiessiH!,  etc., 

R.  Co.,   13  Fed.  642-820. 
United  States  v.  Eaton,  144  U.  S.  077 

—078,   1930. 
Unitiid  States  v.  Egan,  47  Fetl.  112 — 

1784. 
United  States  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  191  Fed. 

941—1985. 
United  States  v.  Fowkes,  49  Fed.  50 

—  1944. 

United   States   v.   Great  Northern   R. 

Co.,      157     Fed.     288—1931,     1940. 

1945,    1946,    1955.    1974. 
United  States  v.  Hall,  98  U.  S.  343— 

1930. 
United    States    v.    Halliday,    3    Wall. 

fU.  S.)    407—1731,  1737. 
United  States  v.  Hanley,  71  Fed.  672 

—  1951,    1958,   1964. 

United    States    v.   Harris.    177    U     S 

305-1982. 
United  States  v.  Hocking  Valley  Ry. 

Co.,  194  Fed.  2,34—1808,  1900,  1970. 
United  States  v.  Hoke,   187   Fed    99' 

—1857. 
United  States  v.  Hopkins.   171   U.  S 

578—1735. 
United  States  v.  Howell,  56  Fed.  21— 

1832,  1833,  1960. 
United    States    v.   Hud-.on,    7    Craneh 

(U.  S.),  32—1892.  ]9;J0. 
United  States  v.  Hlinois  Terminal  R 

Co.,  168  Fed.  546—1956.  1957,  1980. 
United  States  v.  Joint  Traffic  Assoc 

171  U.  S.  505—1758,  1831. 
United   States  v.  Joint  Traffic  Ass'n 

89   Fed.   1020—1851. 
I'uited  States  v.  Kane,   19  Fed    42 

1430. 
United   States  v.   Knight  Co.,   156  U 

S.  1—1735,  1730. 
United  States  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R   Co 

220  U.  S.  257—1860. 
United  States  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R    Co 

204  Fed.  705—1984.  '       '' 

United  States  v.  Lehigli  Valley  R   Co 

184  Fed.  071—809,  1984. 
United  States  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co 

184   Fed.  ,546 — 1840,   1977.  ' 

United  States   v.   Louisville  &  N    R 

Co.,  195  Fed.  88—1808. 
United    States   v.    Louisville,    etc     R 

Co.,  18  Fed.  480—820. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are   to   the   pages.) 


cclxiii 


Unflted  States  v.  Martin,  176  Fed.  110 

1930,  1948. 
United  States  v.  Mellen,  53  Fed.  229 

—1828,  1833,  1949. 
United  States  v.  Merchants'  &  Miners' 

Transp.  Co.,  187  Fed.  363—1957. 
Unit-ed   States   v.   Michigan   Cent.   R. 

Co.,  122  Fed.  544—1877. 
United    States   v.   Michigan   C^'nt.   R. 

Co.,  43  Fed.  26—1833,  1949. 
United  States  v.  Miller,  223  U.  S.  599 

—1836. 
United  States  v.  Miller,  187  Fed.  375 

—1966. 
limited  States  v.  Milwaukee  Refriger- 
ator Transit  Co.,   145   Fed.   1007— 

1815.  1881. 
United  States  v.  Missouri  Pae.  R.  Co., 

65  Fed.  905—1759,  1771. 
United   States   v.   Morsman,   42   Fed. 

448—1777. 
United  States  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  212  U.  S.  509—1931.  1953. 
United  States  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc., 

R.   Co.,   191   Fed.   198-1985. 
United  States  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  186  Fed.  541-1984. 
United  States  v.  Nt»w  York  Cent.,  etc., 

R.  Co..  168  Fed.  699-1982. 
United  States  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  157  Fed.  293-1953. 
United  States  v.  Now  York  Cent.,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  156  Fed.  249—1875. 
United  States  v.  New  York  C«nt.,  etc., 

R.   Co..    153    Fed.   630—1774,    1838, 

1839.  1942,  1944,  1966.  1974. 
United  States  v.  New  York  C-ent.,  etc., 

R.  Co..  146  Fed.  298—1774,  1948, 

1959,  1902.  1967,  1973,  1974. 
United  States  v.  Norfolk  &  W.  R.  Co., 

143  Fed.  266—1812. 
United  States  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

109  Fed.  831—1799. 
Uniited  States  v.  Northern  Pac.  Term. 

Co.,  186  Fed.  047—809. 
United  States  v.  Northern  Pac.  Term. 

Co.,    181    Fed.  879—810,   915,    1984. 
United  States  v.  Northern  Pac.  Term- 
inal Co..  144  Fed.  801—1779. 
United   Stiites   v.   Oregon   R.   &   Nav. 

Co.,  159  Fed.  975—127,  1805,  1806, 

1822. 
United  States  v.  Oregon  Short  Line  R. 

Co..   160   Fed.  526— 19S5. 
United    States    v.    Palmer,    3    Wheat. 

(U.  S.)    610—1892. 


United  States  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 

153  Fed.  625—181,  1846,  1963,  1964, 

1968. 
United   States   v.   Pere  Marquette   R. 

Co.  (C.  C),  171  Fed.  586—810,  811. 
United  States  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  184  Fed.  543—1840,  1977. 
United   States  v.   Pomeroy,   152   Fed. 

279—1955. 
United  States  v.  Popper,  98  Fed.  423 

—1967. 
United  States  v.  Power.  6  Mont.  271 

—13,  15,  99. 
United  States  v.  Ramsey,  197  Fed.  144 

—20,  47. 
United  States  v.  Saul,  58  Fed.  763— 

1875. 
United    States   v.    Sioux    City    Stock 

Yards   Co.,   162   Fed.   556—50,  813. 
United   States   v.   Southern   Pac.   Co., 

171  Fed.  360—1982. 
United   States  v.   Southern   Pac.  Co., 

162  Fed.  412—810. 
United   States   v.   Southern   Pac.  Co., 

157   Fed.  459—1875,   1946. 
United    States    v.    Southern    Ry.    Co., 

135  Fed.  122—1980. 
United  States  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.  of 

New  York,  192  Fed.  438—1947. 
United  States  v.  Standard  O'il  Co.  of 

Indiana,  183  Fed.  223—1972. 
United  States  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  170 

Fed.  988—1838,  1940.  1&47,  1970. 
United  States  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.  of 

Indiana,  155  Fed.  305—1931,  1940, 

1946,  1951,  1971. 
United  States  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  148 

Fed.    719—1816,    1948,    1962,    1975, 

1976. 
United  States  v.  Stearns  Salt  &  Lum- 
ber Co..   105  Fed.  73.5—1946,   1947. 
United    States   v.    Sterling    Salt   Co., 

200  Fed.  593—1967. 
United    States    v.    St.    Joseph    Stock- 
yards  Co.,    181    Fed.   625—50,   813, 

915,  1983. 
United   States   v.   St.   Louis,    etc.,   R. 

Co.,  177  Fed.  205—812. 
United  States  v.  Stockvards  Terminal 

Ry.  Co  ,  172  Fed.  452—1983. 
United    States   v.   Sunday   Creek   Co., 

194   Fed.  252— 1 80S.   1965. 
United  States  v.  Swift,  122  Fed.  529 

— 17.32. 
Unilf'd   States  v.  Texas  &  P.  R.  Co., 

185    Fed.   820—699,    1837.    1844. 


celxiv 


TAULK  OF  CASKS. 
(Tlie   reforeneos   are   to   tlio    pages.) 


United  Stjttes  v.  The  Williiim.  JS  F.d 

Cas.   No.    Ui.700— 1742. 
I'liitoil    State.-*   v.   To/er,    1    Int.    Iniii. 

R.  507—1798. 
Inited  Stjites  v.  Tozer.  .?!»   Fed.  l^liO— ^ 

17S7.   1790.    17111.   1700. 
Initod  States  v.  To/er,  37  Fed.  <»:{') — 

10G4,   10(55. 
Unit<Hl    States    v.    Trans-Missouri    F. 

Ass'n.  ir.o  V.  s.  200—1773.  is:n. 

I'nited    States  v.   Union    Fae.    1\.   Co., 

ISS  Fed.  102— 1S27. 
United    States   v.   Union    Pae.   R.   Co.. 

100   Fed.  05— 10S.3. 
United   States  v.   Union   Stoekyard  & 
Transit   Co.    of    Chieago,    26    U.    S. 
ost;_177S,  1807.  1S78. 
United   States   v.  X^nion   Stoekyard  & 
Transit     Co.,    102    Fed.    330-1877, 
1S78. 
United  States  v.  Vaeuum  Oil  Co.,  158 

Fed.  536—1931,  1040.  1060,  1977. 
United  States  v.  Vacuum  Oil  Co.,  153 

Fed.  598—1846.  1003,  1066. 
I'nited  States  v.  Wabasli  R.  Co..  182 

Fed.  802-1984. 
United   States   v.   Warner    (C.   C,   N. 

Y.).   188  Fed.  682—1857. 
United    States    v.    Wells-Fargo    Expr. 
Co.,  161  Fed.  606—1774,  1801,  1802, 
1803.  1807.  1056. 
United  States  v.  West  Virginia  N.  R. 

Co..  125  Fed.  252—1700. 
United  States  v.  WhecHns  &  L.  E.  R. 

Co.,  167  Fed.  108—1080. 
United  Stati-s  v.  Wilder,  3  Sumn.   (U. 

S.)    308—633. 
United    States   v.   Williams,    159   Fed. 

310—1932.  1948. 
United  States  v.  Wood,  145  Fed.  405 

—1779.   1949. 
United  States  v.  Worrall,  3  Dall.   (U. 

S.)   555. 
I'nited    States    Express   Co.    v.    Baeh- 
man,  28  Ohio  St.    144—23,  38,  40, 
405,  577,  578,  579,  1456,  1458. 
Tnited   States   Express  Co.  v.   Burke, 

94  111.  App.  29—463. 
United    States    Express    Co.    v.    Colin 

(Ark.).  157  S.  W.  144—500. 
United  States  Express  Co.  v.  Council, 

84  111.  App.  401—455,  938. 
United  States  Express  Co.  v.  Haines, 

67  111.  137—433.  743.  766. 
United  States  Express  Co.  v.  Harris. 
51  Ind.  129—481.  772. 


I'liited    States    Express    Co.    v.    .loyce 

(Ind.).  72  N.  E.  865—891. 
I'nited    States    Express    Co.    v.    Joyce 

(Ind.    App).    60    X.    !•:.    lOl.V-SOO. 

006. 
I'nited    States   Express    Co.   v.   Kefer, 

50   Ind.  263—263. 
I'nit<'d  States  Express  Co.  v.  Koerner, 

()5    .Mian.   540,  68  N.   W.  608—523, 

524,  62S. 
Ihiited  States  Express  Co.  v.  Kountze, 

8  Wall.    (U.  S.)   342—735. 
I'nited    States    Express    Co.    v.    Rush, 

24   Ind.   403—39,  212,  766. 
ITnited    States    Eidelity    &    G.    Co.    v. 

Commonwealth.    130'  Ky.   27—1737. 
United    States    Lace  Curtain   Mills  v. 

Oceanic  Steam   Navigation  Co.,   145 

Fed.  701—2012. 
United  States  Mail   Line  Co.  v.  Mfg. 

Co.,  101    Ky.  658—741. 
United  States  Tel.  Co.  v.  Gildersleeve, 

20   .Md.  232—92,  93. 
Upham  V.  Detroit  Qitizens  R.  Co.,  85 

Mich.   12—1639. 
U])legrove  V.  Central  R.  Co.,  16  Misc. 

Rep.   (N.  Y.)    14—187,  752. 
Uransky  v.  Dry  Dock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44 

Hun   (N.  Y.),  119—1560. 
Utlev   V.   Mining   Co.,   4   Colo.   369— 
1735. 


V. 

Vail  V.  Broadway  R.  Co.,   147   N.  Y. 

377—1648. 
Vail  V.  Pacific  R.   Co..   63  Mo.  230— 

33,  315. 
Valdosta  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ferm.  11  Ga. 

App.  58(!— 962,  1007. 
Valentine  v.  Long  Island  R.   Co..   187 

N.  Y.  121—284.  531,  532,  533. 
Valentine    v.    Middlesex    R.    Co.,    137 

Mass.  28—1098. 
Valle  V.  Cerre,  36  Mo.  576—233. 
Van    Akin    v.    Erie    R.    Co..    92    App. 

Dav.   (N.  Y.)   23 — 461,  578. 
Vanatta  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  154  Pa.  St. 

262—776. 
Van    Bokkelin    v.    IngersoU,   5   Wend. 

(N.  Y.)    315— 165,  642. 
Van  Buskirk  v.  Purinton,  2  Hall   (N. 

Y.).  561—633. 
Van   Buskirk  v.  Quincy,  etc,,  R.  Co., 

143  Mo.  App.  707—892. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references   are  to   the   pages.) 


cclxv 


Van  Buskirk  v.  Roberts,  31  X.  Y.  661 

—350,  1259,  1558. 
Vandergrift  v.    West   Jersey   &    S.   R. 

Co.    (X.  J.  L.),  60  Atl.  184—086. 
Vanderbilb  v.   Richmond    Turnp.    Co., 

2  X.  Y.  479—1184. 

Vanderbilt  v.   Schreyer,  91   X.  Y.  392 

—1466. 
Vanderslice  v.  The  Superior.  4  Pa.  L. 

J.  Rep.  388-54. 
Van    de   Vinter   v.    Chicago    City   Rv. 

Co..  26   Fed.  32—945. 
Van  Dusan  v.  Railwav  Co.,  97  Mich. 

439—1415. 
Van  Etten  v.  Xewton.  134  N^.  Y.   143 

—694. 
Van  Gilder  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44 

Iowa,  548—1348. 
Van  Hassel  v.  Borden,  1  Hilt.  (X.  Y.) 

128—1376. 
Van  Hern  v.  Tavlor,  7  Rob.  (La.)  201 

—26.  1993. 
Van  Horn  v.  Kermit.  4  E.  D.  Sm.   (X. 

Y.)     453—1293,    1306,    1343,    1351, 

1356. 
Van  Horn  v.  Taylor,  2  La.  Ann.  587 

— 559.  561. 
Van  Kirk  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co..  76 

Pa.  St.  66— 1015." 
Van    Xatta   v.   Mutual    Security    Ins. 

Co..  2  Sandf.    (X.  Y.)    490—546. 
Van  Ostran   v.  Xew  York   Cent.,  etc., 

R.  Co..  104  N.  Y.  683—1567. 
Van  Ostran  v.  Xew  York  Cent.,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  35  Hun   (N.  Y.),  590— ll2o, 

1231,  1567. 
Van   Patten   v.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.. 

81   Fed.  545—711. 
Van  Santvoord  v.  St.  John,  6  Hill  (X. 

Y.),    157—23,    257,    738,    744.    757, 

1362. 
Van  Schaaek  v.  Xorthern  Transp.  Co.. 

3  Bi.ss.   ( U.  S. )   394—452,  575. 
Van  Toll  v.  South  Eastern  R.  Co..  12 

C.  B.  X.  S.  75—403. 
Van  Winkle  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  3 

Robt.    (X.  Y.)    59—407.  526. 
Van  Winkle  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Cx).. 

46  Hun   (X.  Y.)   564—1200. 
Van  Winkle  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co., 

38  (in..  32—574. 
Van   Winkle  v.  U.  S.  Mail  Steamship 

Co..  37   Barb.    (X.  Y.)    122—328 
Varblfj.v.  Bigley,  14  Bush   (Ky.),  698 

1,  23,  57. 


Vassor  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

142  X.  C.  68-970. 
Vaughan  y.   Proyidence,  etc..   R.   Co.. 

13   R.   I.   578—633,   634,   637,   638. 

739. 
Vaughan  v.  Watt,  6  M.  &  W.  492— 

280. 
Vaughn  v.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co..  27 

R.  I.  235—196. 
Vaughn    v.    Wal)ash    R.   Co.,    62    Mo. 

App.  461 — 456. 
Vedder    y.    Fellows,    20    X.    Y.    126— 

1068,  1.304. 
Vencill    v.   Quincy,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    132 

Mo.  App.  722—837,  843,  887,  902, 

920. 
Vermont  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71 

Iowa,  58—1680. 
Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fitchburg  R. 

Co.,  14  Allen   (Mass.)  462—51,  122. 
Verner  y.  Sweitzer,  32  Pa.  St.  208 — 

1,  19,  39,  112.  428,  944,  1453. 
Verrall   v.    Robinson,    5    Tyr.    1069 — 

328. 
Vessels  v.   Metropolitan   St.   Ry.   Co., 

129  Mo.  App.  708—1571,  1652. 
Vic  V.  Xew  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

95  X.  Y.  267—1063. 
Viekers  v.   Atlanta,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    64 

Ga.  306—1510. 
Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Brien,  119 

U.  S.  99—1562,   1563. 
Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Patton,   31 

Miss.   156—1.552. 
Vicksburg.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Phillips.  64 

Miss.    693—1475,    1510. 
Vicksburg,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Putnam,  118 

U.  S.  545—1083,  15.54.   15.55. 
Vicksburg.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Ragsdale.  46 

Miss.  458—136.  .343.  344.  362,  367 

582,  597.  615.  616.  619,  620. 
Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scanlon,  63 

Miss.  413—1720,   1722. 
Vigouroux   V.   Piatt,    115   X.   Y.  Supp. 

880.  62  Misc.  R.  364—501,   1917. 
Village    of    Carterville    v.    Cook.    129 

111.   152—46. 
Vincent  v.  Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co..  49  Til 

3.3—245.  246,  380,  407. 
Vine    V.    Berksliire    St.    Ry.    Co..    212 

Mass.  580—1674. 
Vineberg  v.  Grand   Trunk   R.   Co.     13 

Ont.   App.  9.3—1350,    l.{51. 
Viner   v.   Xew   York,   etc..    R.   Co.    50 

X.  Y.  2.5—200.  234,  560. 


colxvi 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 

(Tlio    roforoncea   nic    to    tin-    piijios.) 


Vinton  v.  Btildwin.  05  \m\.  4:53—647. 
Vinton    v.    MiildUsox    R.    K.    Co.,    11 

Allon      (Muss.)      304—1140.      1104. 

1401.  1407. 
\iolett    V.    Stottinius.    5    Crancli     (C. 

C.)   sr.o— 243. 
Virginia-Carolina   Peanut   Co.   v.   At- 
lantic Coast  Line  R.  Co..  155  N.  C. 

148—598. 
Virginia   Cent.   R.   Co.   v.    Sanjjcr.    15 

Oratt.   (Va.)   250— 10S2,  1098. 
Vir^^inia   Coal   &    Iron   Co.   v.   Louis- 
ville, etc..  R.  Co..  08  Va.  776—165. 
Virt^inia.   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.    Sayars.   26 

Gmtt.    (Va.)    328—459,    469,    822, 

897.  1451. 
N'irginia  Midland  R.  Co.  v.  Roach,  83 

Va.  375—1042.   1572.   1627. 
Visanaka  v.  Southern  Exi)res8  Co.,  92 

S.  C.  573—515. 
Vischer  v.  Northwestern  Elev.  R.  Co., 

256  111.  572—1540. 
Vlasservitch  v.  Augusta  &  A.  Ry.  Co., 

85  S.  C.  291—1387. 
Voak  V.  Northern  Cent.  R.  Co.,  75  N. 

Y.  320—1580. 
Vogel  V.  Union  Ry.  Co.,  130  App.  Div. 

(N.  Y.)   732—1495. 
Voight  V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79 

Fed.  561—1053. 
Volkmar  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  134  N. 

Y.  418—1116.  1479. 
Voorhees  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71 

Iowa,  735—541.  585. 
Voorhees  v.  Kings  County  El.  R.  Co., 

3  Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)    18—1656. 
Vormus  v.  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97 

Ala.  326—976. 
Voss  V.   Wagner  Palace   Car   Co.,    16 

Ind.  App.  271—64.  fi". 


w. 

Wabash,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Black,  11  111. 

App.  465—787. 
Wabash,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Brown,    152 

111.  484 — 483,  896. 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Illinois,   118 

U.  S.  557—1742,  1746,   1747,   1754, 

1857. 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Illinois,   104 

111.    476—1753. 
Wabash,   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   .Tacgcrman, 

115  111.  407—743,  766,  1460. 


Wahasli,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Lynch,   12  111. 

App.  365—584.   505.  615.  618. 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  MrCasland,  11 

111.  App.  4;>1— 343,  838. 
Wabasli.   etc..   R.   Co.   v.   Pevton,    106 

111.  534 — 418.  463. 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pratt,   15   111. 

App.   177—815. 
Wabash,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v.   Rector,    104 
111.  206—973,  985,  1150,  1227,  1237. 
Wabasli.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shacklet,  105 

111.  364—1269. 
Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  152  111.  484 

— 483,  896. 
Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  51  111.  App. 

656—413. 
Wabash   R.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  219  111. 

312—856. 
Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  Curtis,  134  IlL  App. 

400—444. 
Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  55  111.  App. 

159—437,  743.  754,  766,  769. 
Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  House,  101  111.  App. 

397—294. 
Wabash   R.   Co.   v.   Jellison,    124   lU. 

App.  652—993,  1049,  1051,  1539. 
Wabash    R.   Co.   v.   Johnson,    114  IlL 

App.  545—903. 
Wabash   R.  Co.  v.  Kingsley,   177   111. 

558—1426. 
Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  Mathew,  199  U.  S. 

605—1140,  1270. 
Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  Pearce,   192  U.  S. 

179—626. 
Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  Priddv   (Ind.),  101 

N.  E.  724—507,  1835,  "l889. 
Wabash   R.   Co.   v.    Savage,    110   Ind. 

156—1148.   1181. 
Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  Sharpe,  76  Neb.  424 

312. 
Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  Sloop,  200  Mo.  198 

—1837. 
Wabash    R.    Co.   v.   Thomas,   222    111, 

;i37— 886. 
Wabash    R.   Co.   v.   Thomas,    122   111. 

App.  569—898. 
Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  United  States,  178 

Fed.  5—812. 
Wacher  v.  Interborough  Rap.  T.  Co., 

125  N.  Y.  Supp.  767—1697. 
Waddy  v.   Brooklyn   Heights  R.   Co., 

140  N.  Y.  Supp.  824—1652. 
Wade  V.  Hamilton.  30  Ga.  450 — 213, 
Wade  V.  Lerov,  20  How.   (U.  S.)   34— 
1727. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages. 


cclxvii 


Wade   V.    Lutcher    &    Moore    Cypress 

Lumber  Co.,  74  Fed.  517—86,  87. 
Wade  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  78  Mo. 

362—589. 
Wade  V.  Wheeler,  47  X.  Y.  658— 17 L 
Wade  V.Wheeler,  3  Lans.  (X.  Y.)  201 

—80,  84.  171,  375. 
Wadsworth  v.  Boston  El.  R.  Co.,  182 

Mass.  572 — 1477. 
Wagner  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.. 

147  X.  C.  315—1653,  1675. 
Wagner  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.. 

174  X\  Y.  520—1034. 
Wagner  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 

95    App.   Div.    (X.   Y.)    219—1081, 

1234,  1619. 
Wagner  v.  Farmers'  &  Merchants*  Ins. 

Co.,  90  Xeb.  463—1530. 
Wagner  v.  Meakin,  92  Fed.  76 — 1737. 
Wagner  v.  Missouri   Pac.   R.  Co.,  97 

Mo.  512—1021,  1041,  1145,  1627. 
Wagoner  y.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  118  Mo. 

App.  239—1109. 
Wahl  y.  Holt,  26  Wis.  703—756,  760. 
Wahle  y.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  41 

Mont.  326—828. 
Wait  V.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Lans. 

(X.  Y.)    47.5—755. 
Wait   V.    Gilbert.    10    Cush.     (Mass.) 

177—611. 
Wait  y.  Omaha,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  165  Mo. 

612—1221. 
Waite  V.  Xew  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

110  X.  Y.  63.5—119,  341,  344,  736. 
Wakefield  &  Moore  y.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  31  Ky.  Law.  Rep.  1108—941. 
Wakefield  y.  South  Boston  R.  Co.,  117 

Mass.  544 — 1027. 
Wald   V.   Louisville,    etc.,   R.    Co.,   92 

Ky.  645— 385,  410,1350,  1351,1353. 
Wald   V.   Pittsburg,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    162 

III.  54.5—311,  1122. 
Wald  y.  Pitt9l)urg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  111. 

App.  460—448,  951. 
Waldele  v.  Xew  York  Cent.,  etc.,   R. 

Co.,  95  X.  Y.  274—1559,  1562. 
Waldron  y.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  22 

Wash.  253—543. 
Waldron    v.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    1 

Dak.  330-185,  207,  233,  1135,  1301. 

1302,   1352. 
Walger  y.  .JcrRev  City  R.  Co.,  71  X. 

J.  L.  356—962,   1007. 


Walker  v.  Beaumont  Land  &  W.  Co., 

15  Cal.  App.  726 — 1537. 
Walker  v.  Cassaway,  4  La.  Ann.  19 — 

638. 
Walker   y.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    71 

Iowa,  658 — 554. 
Walker    v.    Detroit,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    4;) 

Mich.  446 — 329,  331. 
Walker   v.   Eikleberry,   7   Okl.    559 — 

409. 
Walker  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  63  Barb.    (X. 

Y.)     260—1261,    1479,    1511,    1714. 

1715,   1727,   1728. 
Walker  v.   Great   Western   R.   Co.,   S 

U.  C.  C.  P.  161—1018. 
Walker  v.  International  &  G.   X.  R. 

Co.    (Tex.    Civ.   App.),    117    S.    W. 

1020—1276. 
Walker  v.  Jackson,  10  M.  &  W.  161 — 

59,  525. 
Walker  v.  Keenan,  73  Fed.  755 — 799. 
Walker  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill 

Ala.   233—530. 
Walker  v.  Piatt,  34  Misc.  Rep.  799 — 

426. 
Walker  v.  Price  (Kan.  App.),  59  Pac. 

1102—1024. 
Walker   v.    Skipwith,    Meigs    (Tenn.) 

502—62,  72,  427,  1338. 
Walker  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  76  S.  C 

308—888. 
Walker  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 

La.  Ann.  79.5 — 1676. 
Walker   v.   Wabash,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    15 

Mo.   App.  333—1015,   1029. 
Walker  v.  Walker,  5  Heisk.    (Tenn.) 

425—264. 
Walker    v.    Western    Transp.    Co.,    3 

Wall.   (U.  S.)    150—1451. 
Walker  v.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  El.  t 

Bl.  750 — 542. 
Walker  v.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Eng. 

L.  &  Eq.  315—1454,   1455. 
Wall  y.  Cameron,  6  Colo.  275 — 1702 

1715,  1717. 
Wall  v.  Helena  St.  R.  Co.,   12  Mont 

44—1131. 
Wall  v.  Livezay,  6  Colo.  46.5 — 1488. 
^^■all  v.   Norfolk,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  52  W 

Va.  485—17.52. 
Wallace  v.  Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co    216 

Pa.  311—626. 
Wallace  v.  Clayton,  42  Ga.  443 311, 


cclxviii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  roforoncos  arc  to  tlie  pages.) 


Walhu-e  V.   Ouhlin.  etc..  K.  Co..  8  Ir. 

R.  C.  L.  311  — 3.-)n. 
Walliicc   V.    Cireiit    Soutlieni.    etc.,    R. 

Co..  17  W.  R.  404— i:?r>. 

Wallaee  v.  Jaekson.  10  M.  ^;  \\  .  HiS  - 

•"'■-"• 
Wallace  v.   hake   Shore   &    M.   S.    R. 

Co..   i:i3   Miih.  (i:5:?— 902.  !)0;i. 
WaUaoe    v.    Matthiws.    3!>    Ca.    (517— 

;52S,  438. 
Wallace  v.   Pecos,   etc..   R.   Co.    (Tex. 

Civ.  App.).  110  S.  VV.  162— 8G8. 
Walhu-e  v.  Sanders.  42  Ca.  486—324, 

433. 
Walhu-e  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co..  36  App. 

Div.    (N.  Y.)    r)7— !)75. 
Wallace  v.   Western,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   98 

N.  C.  494—1264. 
Wallace  v.  Western  North  C.  R.  Co., 

101    N.    C.    454—1632,    1702.    1715, 

1728. 
Wallace  v.  Wilniinston.  etc.,  R.   Co., 

S    Houst.    (Del.)"  529— 1012,    1702, 

1706.  1714. 
Wallace   v.   Wilmington,   etc.,   R.   Co. 

(Del.).  18  Atl.  818—1114. 
Wallace  v.   Woodgate   Ry.  &  N.   193, 

21  K.  C.  L.  414—644. 
Waller  v.   llannihal,   etc.,    R.   Co.,   83 

Mo.  608—1213. 
Waller  v.  :Midland  Great  Western  R. 

Co..  L.  R.  4  Ir.  376—583,  611. 
Waller    v.    Wilmington    City    Ry.    5 

Penn.    (Del.)    374—975. 
Wall-Huske    Co.   v.   Southern    R.   Co., 

147   N.  C.   407—388. 
Walling  V.  Michigan,  116  U.  S.  446— 

1747. 
Walling    V.    Railway    Co..    12    Phila. 

(Pa.)    309-1644." 
WalliniT   V.   Trinity   &   Brazos   Valley 

Rv.   Co.    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),   106   S. 

W.  417—1254,   1550,   1653. 
Wallingford  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

26    S.    C.   258—152.   446,   458,    577, 

.582,   .599.    740,    749,    772,    804,    805, 

905,  1452,  1459. 
Walpole  V.  Bridges,  5  Blackf.    (Tnd.) 

222—307. 
Walsh    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    42 

Wis.  2.3—1141,  1708.  1709. 
Walsh  V.  Cullen,  225  111.  91—1007. 
Walsh   V.   Pittsburg,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    10 
Ohio  St.  75—1463. 


Walston  V.  Myers,  5  Jones  L.  (N.  C.) 

172—54,  75. 
Walter    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    39 

Iowa,  33—1593. 
Walters     v.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

(Wis.)   89  N.  \\.  140-1676. 
Walters  v.   Seattle,  etc.,   Ry.  Co.,  48 

Wash.  233— 14S5. 
Walters  v.   Western,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   66 

Fed.   862—545. 
Walters   v.   Western,   etc.,   R.   Co..   63 

Fed.  391—226. 
Walters  v.    Western,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   56 

Fed.  369—221. 
Walther    v.    Southern    Pac.    Co.,    159 

Cal.   769—956,  9!)5,   1472. 
Walthers  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72 

111.  App.  3.14— 1608,  1613. 
Walthour  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  40 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  2.52—1667. 
Walton    V.    Philadelphia    Tract.    Co., 

161   Pa.  St.  36—1616. 
Wamsley  v.  Atlas  Steamship  Co.,  168 

N.  Y."  533—275,  276,  285,   1340. 
Wandell   v.   Corbin,    17    St.   Rep.    (N. 

Y.)   718,  1  N.  Y.  Su|)p.  79.-) — 1014. 
Wandell  v.   Corbin,  40   Hun    (N.  Y.) 

608—960,  1006. 
Wandell  v.   Corbin,   38   Hun    (N.  Y.) 

391—1690. 
Wann  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  37 

Mo.  472—88.  92. 
Wan/.er  v.  Chippewa  Val.  Elec.  R.  Co., 

108  Wis.  319—1215,   1583. 
Warburton  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  21   L. 

T.  X.  S.  83.5—1(132. 
AVard  v.  Benson,  31   How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.) 

411—1376. 
Ward  V.  Central  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co..  1 1 

Abl.  Pr.  N.  S.    (N.  Y.)    411—1643. 

1646. 
Ward  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Kan. 

824—874. 
Ward  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Wis.), 

.55  N.  W.  771—1596. 
Ward   V.    International    Ry.    Co.,    206 

N.  Y.   83—1648. 
W^ard    V.    Maryland,    79    U.    S.     (12 

W^all.)    418—1747. 
Ward  V.  IMetropolitan  St.  Rv.  Co.,  99 

App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    126—1619. 
Ward   V.   Missouri    Pac.    R.   Co.,    158 
Mo.  226—440,  481,  1848. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The   references   are   to   the   pages.) 


cclxix 


Ward  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co..  47 

N.  Y.  29—357.  596. 
Ward  T.  Railroad  Co.    (111.  Sup.).  46 

X.   E.  36.>— 1226. 
Ward  V.  Railway  Co.,  102  Wis.  215— 

1506. 
Ward  V.  Vanderbilt,  1  Keyes   (X.  Y. ) 

70 — 1259. 
Warden  v.  Creer,  6  Watts    (Pa.)    424 

34,  76,  355. 
Warden   v.   Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co..   3.") 

Mo.  App.  631—1233,   1246,   1256. 
Wardlaw  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co..  1 1 

Rich.  L.   (S.  C.)    337—571,  579. 
Wardle  v.  Citv   R.  Co.,  35  La.   Ann. 

202—1247. 
Wardrobe  v.   California   Storage   Co.. 

7  Cal.  118,   119—1720.   1725. 
Ward's    Cent.,    etc..    Lake    Co.    v.    El- 
kins,  34  Mich.  439—597,  610. 
VVardwell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46 

Minn.   514—1398,   1410,   1442. 
Ware  v.  Gav,  28  Mass.  (11  Pick.)   106 

—1132,  1505. 
Ware  &  Leland  v.  Mobile  County,  209 

U.  S.  405—1735. 
Ware   River   R.   Co.   v.  Vibbard,    114 

Mass.  147—644. 
Wareham     Bank    v.    Burt,    5     Allen 

(Mass.)    113—350. 
Warehouse,   etc.,   Supply   Co.   v.   Cal- 
vin, 96  Wis.  523,  71' X.  W.  804— 

629.  655. 
Warfield   v.   Hepburn,   52   Fla.   409— 

1532. 
Warfield    v.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

104  Tenn.  74—1391. 
Wearing   v.   Indemnity   Fire   Ins.   Co., 

45  X.  Y.  606—546. 
Warner  v.  Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co.,  168 

U.  S.  339— 97 9,  1690. 
Warner  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22 

Ohio.  166—1303,  1355. 
Warner  v.  Xpw  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  44 

N.  Y.  465—1516.  1541. 
Warner    v.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

3  Int.  Com.  Rep.  74—1782,  1786. 
Warner  v.   St.   Louis  &   S.   F.  R.  Co., 

156  Mo.  App.  523—705. 
Warner    v.    The    Illinois,    17    Pbila. 

(Pa.)    549—258. 
Warner     v.     WchUtt}    Transp.    Co.,    o 

Roht.   (N.  Y.)    190—523. 
Warren  v.  Fit^-liburg  R.  C^.,  8  Allen 

(Mass.).   227—973.   980.   989.    1115. 


Warren  v.  Southern  Kansas  R.  Co., 
37  Kan.  408—1614. 

Washburn  v.  Xashville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
3  Head  (Tenn.),  638.  644—988, 
1031,  1576,  1628. 

Washburn-Crosbv  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co..   180  Mass.  252 — 481,  7 ML 

Washburn-Crosby  Co.  v.  William 
Johnson  &  Co'.   125   Fed.  273—518. 

Washburn,  etc.,  ^Ifg.  Co.  v.  Provi- 
dence, etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Mass.  490- 
739,  757. 

Washington  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
101  X.  C.  239—779,  780. 

Washington  &  G.  R.  Co.  v.  Hickey, 
23  Wa^h.  L.  R.  177—1583. 

Washington  &  G.  Rv.  Co.  v.  Patter- 
son, 9  App.  D.  C'.  423—962,  975, 
1007,  1727. 

Washington  &  G.  R.  Co.  v.  Tobriner, 
147  L.  S.  571—1239. 

Washington,  etc.,  Rv.  Co.  v.  Chap- 
man, 26  App.  D.  Cl  472 — 1550. 

Wa.shington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gladmon, 
82  U.  S.  (15  Wall.)  401—1543, 
1545,    1546.   1591. 

Washington,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Harmon, 
147  U.  S.  571—1236,  1598.  1716. 

Washington,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  McLane, 

II  App.  D.  C.  220— 1560. 
Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vaughan, 

III  Va.  78.5—1688. 
Washington,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Yarnell, 

98   U.   S.   479—1211. 
Washington,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.  v.  Hobson. 

15   Gratt.    (Va.)    122-88. 
Wasliington-Virginia  Rv.  Co.  v.  Bouk- 

night.   113  Va.  696—1504. 
Waterburv    v.    Chiicago.    etc.,    R.    Co., 

104  Iowa,  32—1602. 
Waterburv  v.  Xew  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co..   HFed.  671—957,   10.30,   10.3.3, 

1058. 
Waterburv  v.  Xew  York.  etc..  R.  Co., 

21   Blatchf.   (U.  S.)   314—959.  1043. 
Waterliouse  v.  Comer,  55   Fed.   149 — 

1960. 
Waterman     v.     Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Oo. 

(Wis.),  52  N.  W.  247—1544. 
Waters  V.  Cox.  2  Bradw.    (111.  App.) 

129—390. 
Waters  v.  Richmond  &  D.  R.  Co..  110 

X.   C.  338—155,   5.50. 
Water   Valley   Bank   v.   Soutliem    Ex- 
press Co.,  71   Miss.   741 — 343. 


oolxx 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


(Tlio    rcforoiicos   iire    to    the    piigea.) 


Watkins  V.  Kl.  To.   (Ala.),  24  So.  391 

—  1(547. 
Watkins  v.   M.m.'Ix,  2  Tex.  Civ.  Ajip. 

Cas..   §   7'27— r)41. 
Watkins'  v.   Now   York  C<»nt..  etc..  R. 

Co..  :<  N.  Y.  Supp.  n4fi— i:i5i. 

Watkins  v.   IVnnsvlvania    R.   Co.    ( D. 

C).  52  Am.  &  kng.  R.  Cas.   159— 

lOtiS. 
Watkins  v.   Raloigh.  etc.,  R.  Co..   11(> 

N.  C.  <1G  1  —  124:?. 
Watkins  v.  Torre  Haute,  etc..  R.  Co., 

S  Mo.   App.  570—780. 
Watkins  v.  I'nion  Tract.  Co.,  194  Pa. 

St.  .'itU— 1519. 
Watkinson  v.  Langliton,  8  Johns.   (N. 

Y.)    21:]— 5S1.   587. 
Watson  V.  Amborjratc.  etc..  R.  Co.,  15 

.lur.   44S— 624.  744. 
Watson  V.  Anderton,   1   Barn.  &  Aid. 

450—532. 
Watson  V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

145  X.  C.  2;]fi— 250. 
Watson  V.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  N. 

J.  L.  12.5-1065. 
Watson    V.    Georgia   Pac.    R.   Ck>.,    81 

Ga.  476—1678. 
Watson   V.   Mempliis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   9 

Heisk   (Tenn.).  25.5—27. 
Watson    V.    North    British    R.    Co..    3 

Rv.  and  C.  T.  Cas.  17—06. 
Watson    V.    North    British    R.    Co.,    3 

Sc.  Sess.  Cas.    (4th  Soss.)    637—12. 
Watson  V.  Oswepo  St.  Rv.  Co..  7  Misc. 

Rep.    (N.  Y.)    356,  28  N.  Y.  Supp. 

84—1593. 
Watson  V.  Oxanna  Land  Co.,  92  Ala. 

.320—1005. 
Watson  V.  Portland  &  C.  E.  Ry.  Co.. 

91   Me.  584-16.39.  1641. 
Watson   V.   St.   Paul   Oity  R.   Co.,  42 

Minn.  46—945. 
Watters  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

239  Pa.  492—1005. 
Watts   V.   Boston,  etc..  R.   Corp..    10(5 

Mass.  466-84.  376. 
Watts  V.  Savannah,  etc..  Canal  Co..  64 

Ga.  88—79. 
Wattson     V.     Marls.     Fed.    Cas.    No 

17.29r — 1900.    1991. 
Wau'^h   V.   Gulf.   C.   &   S.   F.   Rv.   Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  131  S.  W.  843— 
605.  720. 
Way  V.  Chicajro.  etc..  R.  Co..  73  Town. 
463 — 126 J 


^^av  V.  Chiiaj,'o,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Iowa, 

48-1017,   1029. 
Wayland  v.  Mosely,  6  Ala.  430—67. 
Wayne  v.  St.  lx)u is  &  N.  E.  Ry.  Co., 

165  111.  App.  353—1540. 
W.  B.  Jolinson  &  Co.  v.  Central  Ver- 
mont Rv.  Co.,  84  Vt.  486—226. 
W.  C.  Agee  &   Co.  v.   Lcmisviile  &  N. 

R.  Co.,  143  Ala.  344—43,  105. 
Weaver  v.   Baltimore  &   O.    1\.   Co.,   3 

App.    D.    C.    436,    22    Wash.    L.    R. 

393—1049,  1099,   1224,   1506. 
Weaver    v.    Southern    Ry.    Co.,    6    Ga. 

App.  34—874. 
Weaver  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  135  Mo. 

App.  210—321,  557. 
Webb  V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co., 

76  S.  C.  19.3—1385. 
Webb  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  26  W. 

R.    111—464. 
Webber  v.  Great  Western  R.   Co.,   13 

W.  R.  755—756. 
Webber  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  22 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)    628—1090. 
Webber  v.  Old  Colony  St.  Ry.  Co.,  210 

Mass.  432—1523. 
Webber  v.   St.   Paul   City  R.   Co.,   67 

Minn.    15.5—1559. 
Weber   v.   Brooklyn,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   47 

App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  306—1169,  1170. 
Weber  v.    Kansas  Citv   Cable   R.   Co., 

100  Mo.  194— 1237,  "1247,  1666. 
Weber   v.   New   Orleans,   etc..    R.    Co., 

104  La.  367—1477. 
Weber  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  58 

N.  Y.  451—1081. 
Weber  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  145 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)    84—1072,  1422. 
Weber  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113 

Iowa.  188—1337. 
Weber  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  92 

Towa,  364— 1298.  1.301,  13.30. 
Webster    v.    Flmira,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    85 

Hun   (N.  Y.l.  167—1.500. 
Webster    v.     Fitchburg    R.     Co.,     161 

Mass.  298-972,  1018. 
Webster  v.   Hudson  R.  Co.,  38  N.  Y. 

260—1269. 
Webster    v.    Union    Pac.    R.    Co..    200 

Fed.  597-830.  891.   1882. 
Wedekind  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  20 

Nev.  292—1717. 
Weed  V.  Barney,  45  N.  Y.  344 — 264, 

401,  412. 
Weed  V.  Panamn  P.  Co..  17  N.  Y.  362 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


cclxxi 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


—369,  949,   1147,   1156.   1260,  1426, 

1703. 
Weed    V.    Saratoga,    etc..    R.    Co  .    19 

Wend.    (N.  Y.)    534 — 41,   75,   1295, 

1297,  1361,  1370,  1375,  1377. 
Weeks  v.   Boston  Elev.   Ry.   Co.,   190 

Mass.  563—1637. 
Weeks   v.   Chicago   &   N.   W.   R.   Co., 

198  111.  551—974.   1023. 
Weeks  v.  Goode,  6  B.  N.  S.  367—645. 
Weeks  v.   New   Orleans,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

40  La..  Ann.  800-1689,  1690. 
Weeks   v.   New   Orleans,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

32  La.  Ann.  61.5—1403. 

Weeks  v.  New  York,   etc.,  R.  Co.,   72 

N.  Y.  50—1291,  1296. 
Wehle  V.   Haviland.   69   N.   Y.   448— 

583. 
Wehle  V.  Haviland,  42  How.  Pr.    (N. 

Y.)    399-587. 
Wehmann  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

58  Min.  22^39,  780. 
Weightman  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

70  Miss.  563—1257. 
Weiler  v.  :Manhattan  R.  Co.,  53  Hun 

(N.  Y.),  372—1081,  1242. 
Weiller   v.   Pennsylvania  R.   Co.,   234 

Pa.  St.  310—495. 
Weinberg   v.   Albemarle,   etc.,   R.  Co., 

91  N.  C.  31—740,  767.  768,  780. 
Weinberger    v.    Compagnie    Generale 

Transatlantique,     146     Fed.     516 — 

2040. 
Weinschenck  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

190  Mass.  250—1208,  1209. 
Weir  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  5  Phila. 

(Pa.)  355—481. 
Weir    V.     Rountree,    173    Fed.    776 — 

1470. 
Weisenberg    v.    Lackawanna,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  237  Pa.  33—1693. 
Weiser  v.  Broadwav,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   10 

Ohio  C.  C.  14—1.561. 
Weisinger  v.  Sf)uthorn  Rv.  Co.  in  Ky., 

33  Ky.  Law  V,cp.  1038—802. 
Weiss  V.  Metropolitan  St.  Rv.  Co.,  29 

Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)    332—1239. 
Wfisshaar  v.  Kimball   S.   S.   Co.,    128 

Fed.  397—2037. 
Weitner  v.  Delaware  &  Hudson  Canal 

Co..  27  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.    (4  Rob.) 

234 — 70. 
Weitzmnn   v.  Nas«au  FJectrir  R.  Co., 

33  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    58.5—1588. 
Welch     V.    Boston,    etc..    R.     Co..    41 

Oonn.   33:j— 418,  .521,  896. 


Welch   V.    Concord   R.   Co.,   68   N.   H. 

206—383,  409. 
Welch  V.  Jugenheimer,  56  Iowa,  11— 

1533. 
Welch  V.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.,  1 

Sheld.    (N.  Y.)   457—945. 
Welch  V.  Pullman  Palace  Co.,  16  Abb. 

Pr.  N.  S.   (N.  Y.)    352—63,  66. 
Welch  Lumber  Co.  v.  Norfolk  &  W.  R. 

Co.,   137  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    248— 

1909,  1912,  1925. 
Welfare  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 

4  Q.  B.  693—1477. 
Weiler  v.   London,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   9  C. 

P.  126 — 1226,  1235. 
Wellington   v.    Downer    Kerosene    Oil 

Co.,   104  Mass.  64—563. 
Wells    V.    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    67 

Miss.  24—1225,  1228,  1229. 
Wells    V.    American    Express    Co.,    55 

\Yig    2.3 — 209,  210.  264.  329.  530. 
Wells  V.  Battle,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  532 

—613. 
Wells  V.  Great  Northern  Rv.  Co.,  59 

Or.    165—1297,    1305,    1334,    1339, 

1372,   1379. 
Wells  v.  Maine  Steamship  Co.,  4  Cliff 

(U.  S.),  228—327,  333. 
Wells  V.  New  York  C«nt.  R.   Co.,  24 

N.    Y.    181—468,    480,    1331,    1449,. 

1462.  1465. 
Wells  V.  New  York  C«n.t.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,. 

25  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   365—1147. 
Wells  V.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  32  Fed. 

51—215,  224,  226. 
Wells  V.  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  8  N.  Y.  375 

— 462,  498. 
Wells  V.  Steam  Navigation  Co.,  2  N. 

Y.  204,  205—14,  56. 
Wells    V.    Steinwav    R.    Co.,    18    App. 

Div.    (N.  Y.)    180—1125. 
Wells    V.    Thomas,    27    Mb.    17—223, 

637,  639,  782. 
Wells  V.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51 

N.  C.    (6  Jonra  L.)    47—183. 
Wells,  etc..  Express  v.  Fuller,  13  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  610—344,  615. 
Wells,  etc.,   Express  Co.  v.   Fuller.   4 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  213,  35  S.  W.  824— 

616,  735. 
Wells,    Fargo    &    Co.    v.    Cutter.    140 

111.  App.  324—513. 
Wells,   Fargo  &   Co.   v.  Hanson    fT.>x. 

Civ.   App.),   73   S.   W.   .346-608. 
Wells,   Fargo  &    Co.  v.  Noiman    y\nr- 

•  iis  Co..  227  v.  5?.  469—473. 


oe-Ixxii 


T  A  ISLE  OF  CASES. 


(Tlio  roforonoos  are  io  tli(>  pages.) 


Wells,    Fargo  &    Co.   v.   NViman    Mar 

I'lis    to.    (T<'\.    Civ.    App. ).    12.")    S. 

W.  (ill— 5ir>. 
NWlls.  Farjr.1  A  Cd.  v.  I'alt.T.  188  Fed. 

SSS — !>'_'!•. 
\\olls,   I'aigo  &   Co.  v.  'llioiiipsoii,  53 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  515 — ti'2'J. 
Wells.  Fargo  Ivxpross  Co.  v.  Williams 

(To.\.   Civ.   App.),   71    S.   W.   314— 

KiT.  5!>3.  liOS. 
WolLs,    Farpo   &    Co.    v.    Wiiidham.    1 

Tex.   e  iv.   Ai)p.  2U7— 270. 
Welsh   v.   Alx.na.   74  Fed.  252—1995. 
Welsh  V.  riltsburgh,  etc..  R.  Co.,   10 

Ohio  St.  (J5— 27,  457,  805,  822,  879, 

896. 
Welsli  V.  West  Jersey,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62 

N.  ,T.  L.  655—1426. 
Welton   V.   Missouri,   91    U.   S.   275— 

1732,  1736.  1742,  1748,  1758. 
Weltv    V.    Indiaiiaj.>olis.    etc.,    R.    Co., 

lOo'lnd.  55-1596. 
Wente   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    79 

Neb.  179-850. 
Wentz  V.  Erie  R.  Co.,  3  Hun   (N.  Y.), 

241—1025,  1027. 
\Vi:nt\vorth    v.    Easton    R.    Co.,    143 

-Mass.  248—1557. 
Wenzel  v.  Citv  &  Elm.  Grove  R.  Co., 

64  W.  Va.  310—1655. 
Wenzol  V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  152 

Wis.    418—789.   930. 
Werbowlskv  v.   Fort  Wayne  &   E.  R 

Co..  86  Mich.  236—1087. 
Werle  v.   Long  Island   R.  Co.,   98  N 

Y.  650—1638,  1644. 
Wernick  v.  St.  Ix)uis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co. 

131   Mo.  App.  37—290. 
Weniwag  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

117   Pa.  St.  46—234.   238. 
Wertheimer    v.    Pennsylvania   R.    Co. 

17  Blatchf.    (U.  S.)"  421—327,  372 

575. 
Wertheimer.  S\vartz  Shoe  Co.  y.  Mi.s 

souri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    147    Mo.   App 

489—311. 
Wertz  V.  Western  Union  Tel.   Co.,   7 

Utah,   446—91. 
West  V.  First  National  Bank,  20  Hun 

(N.  Y.).  411—444. 
West  V.   Ivondon.   etc.,   R.   Co.,   L.   R. 

5  C.  P.  622-161. 
West  T.   The   Berlin,    3   Iowa,   552^ 

314. 
West  V.  Ward   (Iowa),  42  N.  W.  309 

—1267. 


Westcliester,  etc.,   K.  Co.  y.  Miles,  55 

I'a.  St.  209—1(169,  1143,  1408. 
West  Cliicago  St.   K.  Co.   v.    Buckley, 

102    IlL  .Vpp.  314—997,   1125. 
W«'st  Cliieugo  St.  R.  Co.  y.  Carr,  170 

111.   47S— 1561. 
We.st    C'hieago   St.    H.    (  o.    y.   .lames, 

69    111.  App.   609—982. 
West  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson, 

180    111.   285—1214. 
West  Chicago  St.  R.  C5o.  v.  Kennelly, 

170  111.  .-)()S— 1561. 
West  Cliicago  St.  R.  Co.  y.  Kennelly, 

66  111.  Api).  244—1475. 
West  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  y.  Kennelly, 

6  Chic.  L.  J.   Wkly.  436—1476. 
West   Chicago    St.    R.    Co.    y.    Krom- 

shinskey.   185  111.  92—1215. 
West  C'hicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Lj'ons,  57 

III.  App.  536—1581. 
West  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  y.  Manning, 

170   111.  417—1218,    1239,    1607. 
VN'est   Chicago   St.    R.    Co.   y.    Marks, 

82   111.  App.    185—1639,   1647. 
West  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  47 

111.  App.  610—1212,   1268. 
West  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Meyer,  69 

111.  App.  625—1647. 
West  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  y.  Nash,  64 

111.  App.  548—1214. 
West  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Shiplett, 

85  111.  App.  683—975. 
West  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  y.  Stephens, 

66  111.  App.  303—1088. 
^Vest  Cliioago  St.  R.  Co.  y.  Stiver,  69 

111.  App.  625—1240. 
Went  Chicago   St.   Ry.   Co.   v.   Torpe, 

187  111.  610—1619. 
West  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  y.  Walsh.  78 

111  App.  595—997,  1002,  1013. 
West  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  y.  Waniata, 

68  111.  App.  481—1239. 
West  Cliicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Winters, 

107  111.  App.  221—1216. 
Westeott   v.    Fargo.   61    N.    Y.   542 — 

461,  484,  485,  487,  497.  ,504,  518. 
Westeott  V.  Fargo,  63  Barb.    (N.  Y.) 

349—447.   460.   569. 
Westeott  y.   Sonttle,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   41 

Wash.  618 — 1200. 
West  End.  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.  y.  Mozely, 

79  Ga.  463—1676. 
Westorfield  v.  Lewis,  43  I^a.  Ann.  63 

—1588,   1591. 
Western  y.   Grand   Trunk   R.   Co.,  54 

Me.  376—597. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


cclxxiii 


Western  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Bovle,  98  Ga. 

446—984. 
iVestem  &  A.  E.  Co.  v.  Haig  &  Pur- 
year,   136  Ga.  494 — 143. 
Western  &  A.  K.  Co.  v.  Ohio  Valley 

Bkg.  &  T.  Co.,  107  Ga.  ,512-^217. 
Western  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Voils,  98  Ga. 

446,  1161. 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Camp.  53  Ga. 

596— :>80,   413. 
Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Exposition 

Cotton  Mills.  81  Ga.  522^48,  550, 

551,  728,  1458. 
Western,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Harwell,  91 

Ala.  340—772. 
Western,  etc.,  Co.  v.  King,  70  Ga.  261 

—1081. 
Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Ledbetter 

(Ga.),  2.5  S.  E.  663—1393. 
Western,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    MeEIwee    6 

Heisk.   (Tenn.)   208—198.  736,  744. 
Western,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Ohio  Valley 

Bkg.  &  T.   Co..    107   Ga.   512—22.5. 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State   95  Md. 

637—1107. 
Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Trust    Co., 

107  Ga.  512—281. 
Western,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Turner,    72 

Ga.  292—1056,   1145. 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Vaughan.  113 

Ga.  354—548. 
Western,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Young,    51 

Ga.  489—1679. 
Western,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Younir    83  IST. 

Y.   512-1587. 
Wes.tern    y\f^.    Co.    v.    The    Guiding 

Star,    37    Fed.    641—570,    588,    592, 

595. 
Western   ^faryiand   R.  Co.   v.  Herold, 

74  Md.  510—1572,  1581. 
Western  Maryland  R.  Co.  v.  Schann, 

53  Mich.   118— 1415. 
Western  Marvland  R.  Co.  v.  Shivers, 

101    :Md.  391-1086. 
Western   Marvland  R.  Co.  v.  Stanley, 

61   Md.  26r — ]2n9,  1584. 
Western    Maryland    R.    Co.    v.    State, 

95  Md.   637—1113.    Io05.    1561. 
W(>stem  Marvland   Co.  v.  Stocksdale, 

83  Md.  245—1415. 
Western    Xe^v    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    1 

Int.  Com.  Rep.  685—1787. 
Western    R.    Co.    v.    TTinvell.    97   Ala. 

341—431,    491.    769,    771,    747. 
Western   R.   Co.   v.   Harwell,   91    Ala. 


340—577,   747,   793,   805,   814,   820, 

881,  905,  1456. 
Western   R.    Co.    v.   Harwell    (Ala.), 

8  So.  649—488. 
Western  R.  Co.  v.  Little,  86  Ala.  159 

—384,  488. 
Western   Ry.   v.   McGraw    (Ala.),    62 

So.  772—1485,  1539. 
Western   R.   Co.   v.   Thornton,   60  Ga. 

300—330,  332. 
Western  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  51  Ga.  489 

—1229. 
Western    R.    Co.   v.    Wagner,    65    111. 

197—232. 
Western  Sash  &  Door  Co.  v.  Chicago, 

etc.,  R.   Co.,   177   Mo.   641—770. 
Western    Transportation   Co.   v.   Bar- 
ber,  56   N.   Y.   544—209,   210,   328, 

530,  532,  636,  645. 
Western   Transp.    Co.   v.   Downer,    11 

Wall.   (U.  S.)    129,  133—575,  578. 
Western  Transp.  Co.   v.  Hoyt,   69  N. 

Y.  230—530,  639.  782. 
Western   Transp.   Co.   v.  Newhall,   24 

111.  466—26.  36,  389.  425,  427,  490, 

577,  1450,   1453,  1454. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Adams,  87 

Ind.  598—91. 
Western    I'nion   Tel.   Co.   v.   Atlanta, 

etc..  States  Tel.  Co.,  5  Nev.   102— 

1731. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Blanchard, 

68  Ga.  299-91. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Broesche, 

72  Tex.  654—91. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Brown,  84 

Tex.  54—478. 
^^^:.■^tern   Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Call  Pub. 

Co.,  181  U.  S.  92—1895. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Carew,  15 

Mich.  525 — 88.  92,   1361. 
Western   l^nion   Tel.   Co.  v.   Crall,   39 

Kan.  580 — 624. 
West<-rn  T'nion  Tel.  Co.  v.  Edsall,  6? 

Tex.  668—88. 
Western   Union   Tel.   Co.   v.   Evser    " 

Colo.   154—1544. 
Wo«;tern  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Fenton.  52 

Tnd.  1—9]. 
Western   Union   Tel.   Co.   v.   Fontaine 

58  Ga.  433—90,  91. 
West-f-m    Union    Tel.    Co.    v.    Goodbni 

(Miss.).  7  So.  214 — 93. 
Western    Union    Tel.    Co.    v.    Graham 

1   (^'olo.  230 — 01.  92.  418.  ' 


cclxiiv 


TABLE  01''  CASES. 
(The  refficucfs  ure  to  the  puj,'os.) 


WcAlern  Union  Tel.   Co.   v.  (.iriswold. 

37   Ohio  St.   :Ui;5— 87.  91. 
Wc-^tern   L'niou  Tel.  Co.   v.   Hyer,   -- 

Fhi.  037—87. 
Wo^Umu   I'liioii   TpI.   Co.   V.  Mwk,  4J 

iiid.  o:j— yo.  91. 
Wostorn   Union  Tel.   Co.  v.  Meredith, 

95  1ml.  !):i-^-91. 
WesU-rn   Union   Tel.   Co.  v.  Neill.   ../ 

TV\.  2S;? — 88.  92. 
WesU^rn  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Pendleton, 

122  U.  S.  347—1737. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.    Reynolds, 

77   Va.   173—88,  93,   1304. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Short,  53 

Ark.  434—91. 
Western   Union  T»-l.  Co.  v.  T}ler,   /4 

111.   168—91. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Woods,  88 

111.   App.  375—102. 
Westfield   V.    Great   Western    R.    Co., 

52  L.  J.  Q.  B.  Div.  276—630. 
WeAthall  V.  C<>ntral   R.  Co.  of  N.  J., 

74  Atl.  397—1336. 
West  .Tersev   R.   Co.   v.   Railway   Co., 

.52  X.  J.  Eq.  31—1268. 
West  Memphis  Packet  Co.  v.  White, 

99  Tenn.   256—1167. 
Weston  V.   Boston  &   M.   R.  Co.,    190 

Mass.  298-621. 
Weston  V.  New  York  El.  R.   Co.,  73 

N.  Y.  ,595—1125.   1601. 
Westphal.-n    v.    Atlantic   N.    &    S.   R. 

Co.,    152   Iowa,   232—802,  855. 
West  Phila.  Pass.  R.  Co.  v.  Gallagher, 

108  Pa.  St.  524—1644. 
West    Vir<rinia    Northern    R.    Cb.    v. 
United  States.  134  Fed.  198—1799. 
West  Virginia  Transp.  Co.  v.  Sweet- 

zer,  25  W.  Va.  434—44. 
Weyand   v.  Atchison,  etc..  R.   Co.,  75 
iWa,  573—211,  217,  218,  232.  2.33. 
Weymire    v.    Wolfe,    52    Iowa,    533 — 

1258. 
W     G.    Dunnington    &•   Co.    v.   IjOuis- 
ville  &   N.   R.   Co.,    153   Ky.   .388— 
173,  181. 
Wlialen  v.   Consol.  Tract.  Co.,   61   N. 

.J.  L.  606—1505. 
Whalen  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60 
Mo.    323—1568,    1596,    1715,    1717, 
1727. 
Whallev  v.  Wray.  3   Eep.  74—13. 
Whalon    v.    Aldrich,    8    Minn.    346— 
597. 


W      11     Aton    Piano    Co.    v.    t  hicago, 

etc.,   Ry.    Co.,    152   Wis.    156-1906. 

W  heat  V.   Plat.te  City,  lU-.,    11.  Co.,  4 

Kan.  370—330,  3.32. 
Whi'aton  v.  Nortli  Beach,  etc.,  R.  (  o.. 

36  Cal.  590—1211. 
Wlienton    v.    Peters,    8    Pet.    (U.    S.) 

591—1891. 
Whwler  V.  Grand  Trunk   Ry.  Co.,  70 

N.  II.  607—1197. 
Wheeler       v.      Hotel       Stev<'ns       Co. 

(Wash.),    127   Ptvc.  840—1612. 
Wheeler   v.  Oceanic  Steam   Nav.   Co.. 

125  N.  Y.  155—497. 
Wheeler  v.  Oceanic   Steam   Nav.   Co., 

72  Hun   (N.  Y.),  5—505,   1333. 
Wheeler  v.   Oceanic  Steam  Nav.   Co.. 

52  Hun   (N.  Y.)   75—388. 
Whoeler    v.    San    Francisco,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  31  Cal.  46—156,  1135. 
Wheeler  v.   St.  lx)uis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 

Mo.  App.  358—238. 
Wheelwriglit    v.    Beers,    2    Hall     (N. 

Y.),  391—584. 
Whelan    v.    Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    84 

La.  ,506—1675. 
W.  H.  Ferrell  &  Co.  v.  Great  North- 
em  Ry.  Co.,   119  Minn.  302—1882. 
Whicher  v.  Boston,  etc.,   R.  Co.,   176 

Mass.  275—66. 
Whitaker  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 

L.  R.  5  C.  P.  464—1226,  1232. 
Whitbeck    v.    Schulyer,    31    How.    Pr. 

(N.  Y.)   97—1349. 
White  V.  Aahton,  51  N.  Y.  280—134. 
White  V.  Atlantic  Consol.  R.  Co.,  92 

Ga.  494—974,  1617. 
White  V.  Bartlett,  9  Bing.  382—209. 
White  V.  Bascon,  28  Vt.  268—13,  531. 
White    V.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    144 

Mass.  404—1478,   1487. 
White  V.  Brickley,  156  Mo.  App.  278 

—1585. 
White    V.    Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co.,    6 

Manitoba  L.   R.    169—287,   334. 
White  V.   Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   89 

Kv.  478—151,  859. 
Whi"te    V.    Colorada    Cent.    R.    Co.,    5 

Dill.  428—412,  554. 
White   V.    Colorado    Cent.    R.    Co.,    3 

McCrary    (U.  S.),  559—410. 
White  V.  "Conly,   14  Lea    (Tenn.),  51 

—373. 
White  V.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  136  Mass. 
321  —  1213. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


cclxxv 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


White    V.    Goodrich    Transp.    Co.,    46 

Wis.   493—169,  375,   453. 
White  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  2  C. 

B.  N.  S.  7—371,  466. 

White   V.   Humphrey,    11    Q.    B.   43 — 

413. 
White  V.  Humphrey,  63  E.  C.  L.  43— 

198. 
White   V.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    99 

Miss.  651—964,  967. 
White  V.   Lewiston,   etc.,   St.   R.   Co., 

107  Me.  412—1003. 
White  V.  Miller,  78  N.  Y.   393— 5SS. 
White  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co..  19  Mo. 

App.  400—146,  326,  369,  538,  703. 
White  V.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  115  N. 

C.  651—1147. 

White  V.  North  German  Lloyd  S.  S. 

Co.,  61   Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    268- 

250. 
White   V.    Postal    Telegraph    &    Cahle 

Co.,   25    App.   Cas.    (D.   C.)    364— 

107,  108,  110. 
White  V.  Public  Service  Corp.  of  New 

Jersey,  76  N.  J.  Law,  729—1003. 
White  V.  South   Covington   &  C.   Ry. 

Co.,  150  Ky.  681—1170. 
White  V.   St.' Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.   of 

Texas    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  86  S.  W. 

962—1859. 
White  V.  The  Mary  Ann,  6  Cal.  462— 

54,  75. 
White  V.  Twenty  Third  St.  R.  Co..  20 

Week  Dig.    (N.  Y.)   510—1182. 
White  V.  Vann,  6  Humph   (Tenn.)   70 

—637,  661,  782. 
White  V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co..   14 

Fed.  Rep.  710—91,  92. 
White  V.  Winnisimmet  Co.,  61   Mass. 

(7  Cush.)    15.5—58.  .59,  169. 
Whitehead  v.   St.  Louis,  etc.,   R.  Co., 

99  Mo.  263—987,  988,   1076,    114.5, 

1657. 
Whitehead  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

22  Mo.  App.  60—1570. 
Whitehead  v.  Vaughan.  6  East,  52.3— 

630. 
Whitehead    v.    Wilmington,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  87  N.  C.  255—353,  354. 
White  Live  Stock,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chicago, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Mo.  .\pp.  330—873. 
WhitesidPH  v.  Thurlkill,   12   Smed.  & 

M.   (Miss.)   599—27. 


Chicago,   etc.,  R.  Co.,  27 
-411,  583. 
Cliflford,   57    Wis.    156— 


Wliite   Water   R.   Co.   v.   Butler,    112 

Ind.  598—1256. 
Whitfield  v.  Le  Desprurer,  Cowp.  K. 

B.  754—85. 
Whiting  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    97    App.    Div.     (N.    Y.)     11— 
1206,  1263. 
Whitlock    V.    Comer,    57    Fed.    565 — 

1577,   1680. 
Whitman  v.  Western  Counties  R.  Co., 

17  Nova  Scotia,  405—193. 
Whitmore     v.     Bowman,     4     G.     Gr. 

(Iowa),  148—8,  59,  945. 
Whitmore  v.  The  Caroline,  20  Mo.  513 

—109,  1291,  1295. 
Whitney  v.  Beckford,   105  Mass.  267 

—638. 
Whitney  v. 
Wis.  '327- 
Whitney   v. 

1533. 
Whitney  v.   New  York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

102  Fed.  850—1065. 
Whitney  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co., 

143  Mass.  243—66. 
Whitney  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Richmond,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  38  S.  C.  365—203,  204. 
Whitsell  v.  Crane,  8  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.) 

369—1338. 
Whittaker  v.  Eighth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  51 

N.  Y.  295—1563. 
Whittemore  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.  Co.,  76 

N.  H.  388—1420. 
Whittier   v.    Smith,    11    Mass.    210— 

530,   532. 
Whitwam  v.   Wisconsin,   etc.,   R.  Co., 

58  Wis.  408—1107. 
Whitworth  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  87  N.  Y. 
413—53,    359,    461,    575,   578,    770, 
1361. 
Wiber  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113 

Iowa,  188—1358. 
Wibert  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12 
N.  Y.  245—36,   136,   138,  327,  365, 
550. 
Wibert  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 

Barb.   (N.  Y.)   36—343,  3.57,  596. 
Wichita,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Koch,  47  Kan. 

753 — J82.  880. 
Wichita,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Koch,  8  Kan. 

App.  (i42 — 925. 
Wichita   Savings    IJank   v.   A.tcliiiiaon, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  20  Kan.  519—227,  228. 


cclxxvi 


TABLE  OF  OASES. 
(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Wichita    V'allev    R.    Co.    v.    Sweiiaon 

( Tox.  Civ.  .\pp.).  25  S.  W.  47—741. 
Wickwire     Steol     Co.    v.     New     York 

Cent.,  etc.,   R.  Co.,   181    Fed.  31G— 

ISSO. 
Wiciiiner  v.  New  York  Elev.   R.   Co., 

41  Hun   (N.  Y.)   284—1478. 
Wiognnd   v.   Central    R.  Co.  of  N.  J., 

75   Fed.  ;?7a— 1:{.J0.  I.S.jI.  1358. 
Wier    V.    St.    Paul,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    18 

Minn.   IS.'J— 121. 
WifTuiii    V.    Hoston.    etc.,   R.    Co.,    120 

.Mass.  201—271. 
Wifjpins   V.    Hathaway,   6   Barb.    (N. 

Y.)   632—84. 
Wipjjins  V.  King,  91  Hun  (N.  Y.)   340 

— 141S. 
Wipj^iiis    Ferrv   Co.   v.   Chicago,   etc., 

R.  Co..  73  Mo.  380—754.  755. 
Wiglit   V.    United    States,    167    U.    S. 

512— 17SS,   1791,   1829,   1833. 
Wightman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73 

Wis.   190—1027. 
Wilburn  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48 

Mo.  App.  224—1244. 
Wilburn  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

Mo.  App.  20.3—1242,  1246. 
Wilburn  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,   148  Mo. 

App.  692—019. 
Wilbv  V.  Midland  R.  Co.,  35  L.  T.  N. 

S.  '244 — 1018. 
Wilbv  V.  West  Cornwall  R.  Co.,  2  H. 

&  N.  703—744,  753. 
Wilcke    V.    Henrotin,    241    111.    169— 

1596. 
Wilcox   V.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.   Co.,    24 

Minn.  269—207. 
Wilco.x  V.  Chicago  G.  W.  Ry.  Co.,  135 

Mo.   App.    193,    115   S.   W.    1061— 

442,  892. 
Wilcox  V.  Durham  &  C.  R.  Co.,  154  N. 

C.  582—606. 
Wilcox  V.  Parmalee,  3  Sandf.  (N.  Y.) 

610—739. 
Wilcox  V.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

11  Tex.  Civ.  App.  487 — 1042. 
Wilde  V.  Lvnn  &  B.  R.  Co.,  163  Mass. 

53.3—1641. 
Wilde  V.  Merchants'  Despatch  Transp. 

Co..  47  Iowa,  247—52,  446.  550,  769. 
Wilder  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  10 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   364—1476. 
Wild  or  V.  St.  Johnsbury,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

66   Vt.    636—154. 


Wilds  V.  Hudson  R.  Co.,  24  N.  Y.  230 

—  1545. 
Wile   V.   Northern    Pac.    Rv.    Co.,    72 

Wash.  82—1525. 
Wilke   V.    Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.,    15^ 

Iowa,  695-786. 
Wilkerson  v.  Rahrer,  140  U.  S.  545— 

1731. 
Wilkie  V.  Bolster,  3  E.  D.  Sm.  (N.  Y.) 

327—1505,    1512. 
Wilkinson  v.  First  Nat.  Fire  Ins.  Co., 

72  \.  Y.  499—478. 
Will  V.  Postal  Tel.  Cable  Co.,  3  Ap). 

Div.   (N.  Y.)   22—92. 
Willcox  v.  Durham  &  C.  R.  Co.,   152 

N.  C.   316—678. 
Willard  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Co., 

150  Wis.  234—893. 
Willard  v.  Dorr,  3  Mason  (U.  S.)   171 

—650. 
Willard  v.  St.  Paul  City  R.  Co.,  IK! 

Minn.    183—1390,   1437. 
Willetts   V.   Buffalo,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    14 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    585—1219,   1592. 
Williams  v.  Armour  Car  Lines,  7  Pen. 

(Del.)   275—140,  145,  302,  610. 
Williams   v.   Atlantic   Coast   Line   Ti. 

Co.,  56  Fla.  735—621. 
Williams    v.    Branson,    5    N.    C.     (1 

Murph.)    417—53. 
Williams  v.  Carr,  80  N.  C.  294 — 390. 
Williams  v.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co., 

117  Ga.  830—906. 
Williams   v.   Central    R.   Co.   of   New 

Jersey,  93  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   582 — 

950,  1331,  1346,   1352. 
Williams  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  169 

Mo.  App.  468—1504. 
Williams   v.    Citizens'    Elec.    St.    Ry. 

Co.,  2  St.  Ry.  Rep.  433—1108. 
Williams  v.  Cranston,  2  Stark,  82 — 

186. 
Williams  v.   Delaware  Canal  Co.,   53 

Hun,  635—396. 
Williams  v.  East  India  Co.,  3   East, 

192—128. 
Williams  v.  Electric  Co.,  43  La  Ann. 

300—1117. 
Williams  v.   Fears,   179   U.   S.   270— 

1733. 
\Villiams  v.  Fears,  110  Ga.  584 — 1731, 

1733. 
\Villiams  v.  Grant,  1  Conn.  487 — 26, 

75,  373. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


cclxxvii 


(The  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Williams  v.   Great   Northern   R.   Co., 

68  Minn.  5.5 — 1561. 
Williams  v.  Gulf,  etc..  R.   Co.    (Tex. 

Civ,  App.),  135  S.  W.  390—912. 
Williams    v.    Holland.    22    How.    Pr. 

(X.  Y.)    137—207,  259,  401,  411. 
Williams  v.  Louisiana  Ry.,  etc.,  Co., 

121  La.  438—1440. 
Williams  v.   Louisville  &   N.   R.   Co., 

150  Ala.  324—1250. 
Williams  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  109 

Mo.  475—1553. 
Williams  v.  Morgan,  32  La.  Ann.  168 

—550. 
Williams  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)    133—1199. 
Williams  v.  Oregon  Short  Line  R.  Co., 

18  Utah,  210—1065. 
Williams   v.    Pittsburg   Rys.   Co.,    50 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.,  473,  479—1540. 
Williams  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co., 

40  La.  Ann.  417—64.  68,  1148,  1166. 
Williams  v.  Railroad  Co.,  18  Utah,  210 

—1459. 
Williams  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  155  N. 

C.  260 — 169.  1349,  1379. 
Williams  v.  Taylor,  4  Porter    (Ala.) 

234 31. 

Williams  v.  Vandcrbilt.  28  N.  Y.  217 

—1259,  1703,  1708.  1714. 
Williams  v.  Webb,  27  Misc.  Rep.   (N. 

Y.)    508—63,  64,  65. 
Williams  v.  Webb.  22  Misc.  Rep.   (N. 

Y.)   513—66. 
Williams  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

93  X.   C.  42—229. 
Williams  v.  Yazoo  &  M.  V.  R.  Co.,  93 

Miss.  77.  46  So.  399—860,  900. 
Williams  &  Hawkins  v.  Golf,  etc.,  R. 

Co.  (Tc-x.  Civ.  App.)   135  S.  W.  390 

—826. 
Williamson  v.  Cambridge  R.  Co.,  144 

Mass.   148 — 1563,   1.564. 
Williamson    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.)    122  S.  W.  897— 

1275. 
Williamson  v.  Grand  Trunk  Western 

R.   Co.,    1.59  111.   App.  44.3—1000. 
Williamson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

56  .\.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  508—414. 
Williamson  v.  St.  Louis  Tr.  Co.,  202 

Mo.  ."'.4. '.—1.586. 
Williamson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
133  Mo.  App.  375—1497. 


Williamson  &  Co.  v.  Texas  &  P.  Ry. 

Co.    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),    138   S.   W. 

807—191,  242,  276,  385. 
Williford  v.   Southern  Rv.   Co.,  85   S. 

C.  301—986.  1482. 
Willis    V.   Atlantic,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    122 

N.  C.  905—1044. 
Willis  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  62  Me. 

488 — 419. 
Willis  V.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  34  N.  Y. 

670—1266,  1506,  1633,  1638,  1644. 
Willis  V.  Lynn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  Mass. 

351—1076,  1643. 
Willis  V.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  Co.,  7G 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   340—1166,  1168. 
Willis  V.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  63 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y^)   332—1225. 
Willis  v.  Second  Ave.  Tract.  Co.,  180 

Pa.  St.  430—1091,  1108. 
Willmott   V.  Corrigan   Consol.    St.   R- 

Co.,  106  Mo.  535—1213,  1639. 
Willock   V.   Pennsylvania  R.   Co.,    166 

Pa.  St.  184—27,  457,  547. 
W^illoughby   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.. 

37  Iowa.  432 — 1533. 
Willoughby   v.    Chicago   Junction    R., 

etc.,  Co.";  50  N.  J.  Eq.  656—1791. 
Willoughby  v.  Horridge,  12  C.  B.  742 

—59,  556.  927. 
Wilman  v.  Peoples  Ry.  Co.   (Del.),  55 

Atl.  332—1081. 
Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Greenville, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  S.  C.  325—731. 
Wilmington,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Kitchin, 

91  N.  C.  39—218. 
Wilsey  v.   Louisville,  etc.,  R.   Co..   83 

Ky.  511—1015. 
Wilson  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  43  Mo. 

App.  659—211,  237. 
Wilson  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  27  Mo. 

App.  360—211,  237. 
Wilson  v.  Anderton,  1   B.  &  Ad.  450, 

2  E.  C.  L.  426—328. 
Wilson  V.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Ga. 

380—175.  183. 
Wilson   V.  Atlantic,  etc.,   R.   Co.,    129 

Fed.  774—97,  470. 
Wilson  V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Mo.  App.  082—68. 
Wilson  V.  Brett.  11   M.  &  W.   113—6. 
Wilson  V.  Brooklyn  Elov.  R.  Co.,  9  N. 

Y.  Supp.  277—1203. 
Wilson  V.  Californiii  Cent.  R.  Co.,  94 

Cal.   166-384.  .393.  398,  570. 
Wilson  V.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 


iclxxviii 


TABLE  OF  CASES, 
(Tlie  reftMciicos  mo  t<>  tlio  pivges.) 


(J rati.   1554—419,    1;U)1.    l.iO.S.    \:\:\2, 
i;545. 
\\  ilson   V.  riiitu'^'o  litv    Rv.   Co..    Ill 

111.  App.  604— I5;?r).  ■ 

Wilson  V.  City  of  Troy,  135  N.  V.  <»() 

— oSS. 
W  ilHon  V.  Detroit  Initeil  Ry.,  10  Mi<li. 

107.     i:V2    N.    W.    762—962,     1007, 

iri94. 
Wilson  V.  Elliott.  .->7  N.  H.  316—266. 
Wilson  V.  a  rand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  57  Me. 

138—1303.  1347. 
Wilson  V.  Grand  Tnnik  R.  Co.,  56  Ale. 

60—133.  1137. 
Wilson   V.   Lamashirc,  etc..   R.   Co.,   9 

C.  B.  N.  S.  632—599.  618. 
Wilson  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  2  AIo. 

App.  Rep.  1366—598. 
Wilson  V.  New  Castle,  etc.,  18  E.  B.  & 

E.  557—599. 
Wilson  V.   Now  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

6S  Miss.  9—1257,  1672. 
Wilson   V.    New   York   Cent.,   etc.,    R. 

Co..    97    N.   Y.    87 — 466,    878,    879, 

1461. 
\Vilson    V.    Northern   Pac.   R.    Co.,    26 

Minn.  278—1504,   1582. 
Wilson    V.    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    5 

Wash.  621—1711,  1712. 
Wilson  V.  Piatt.  84  N.  Y.  Supp.   143 

— 499. 
Wilson  V.  Rochester,  etc.  Ry.  Co..  123 

App.    Div.   90-1694. 
Wilson   V.    Southern   Pac.   R.   Co.,   62 

Cal.  164 — .578,  580. 
Wilson  V.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.,  129 

Mo.  App.  .347—865. 
^^'ilson   V.   Van   Santvoord,    18    Barb. 

590—674. 
Wilson  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Mo. 

App.  50—234,  484. 
Wilson  V.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  L.  T. 

22.3—186. 
Wilsons  V.  Hamilton,  4  Ohio  St.  722 — 

60.  75,  558. 
Wilson  Sewing  Macliine  Co.  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Mo.  20.3—209, 

235. 
Wilton  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Nav.  Co.,   10 

C.  B.  N.  S.  453—464. 
Wilton  V.  Middlesex  R.  Co.,  107  Ma.ss. 

108—957.  988,  996,  1031,  1057,  1644. 
Wiltse  V.  Barnes,  46  Iowa,  210—266. 
Wiltshire  Iron   Co.   v.   Creat  W^estern 

R.  Co.,  L.  R.  6  Q.  B.   101—630. 


N\  jnchcdl  v.  National  Express  Co.,  64 

\  t.   15-1)9,  427. 
W'indniillcr  v.  Norlln'iii   Pac.  Ry.  Co., 

52  Wash.  (il3 — JOS. 
W  inlrey  v.  Missouri,  oU.'.,   U.  Co.,   194 

Fid.  808—111)5. 
Wing    V.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    1 

Hilt.    (N.    Y.)    235—308,   315,   372, 

550,  568,  747. 
Wingard    v.   Banning,    39    Cal.    543 — 

531,  642,  645. 
Wingate  v.  Smith,  20  Me.  287 — 267. 
Winheim  v.  Field,  107  111.  App.  145 — 

1212. 
Winkficld    v.    Packington,    2    C.    &    P. 

599—185. 
Winkler  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 

Mo.  App.  99—1727. 
Winkler  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 

Mo.     App.     99—1235,     1259,     1710. 

1718. 
Winn  V.  American  Express  Co.,   149 

Iowa,  259,  140  N.  W.  427—500,  507, 

825,   1814,  1977. 
Winne     v.     Illinois    Cent.   R.   Co.,   31 

Iowa,   583—570,  587,  593. 
Winnegar  v.  Central  Pass.  R.  Co.,  85 

Ky.  547—1136,  1147,  1186. 
Winona  &  W.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Rousseau,  48 

Ind.  App.  248 — 1669. 
Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blake,  94   U. 

S.   180—41,   121. 
Winship   v.   Enfield,   42   N.  H     197 — 

1546. 
Winslow  V.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co     42 

Vt.  700—211,  234,  235,  385.      ' 
Winslow  Bros.  &  Co.  v.  Atlantic  Coast 

Line  R.  Co.,  79  S.  C.  344—866,  895. 
Winter  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  41  Mo.  503 

—1302. 
Winter   v.   Southern   Kan.    R.   Co.,   56 

AIo.  App.  282—767. 
Winterfield  v.  Second  Ave.  R.  Co     20 

N.  Y.  Supp.  801—1541. 
Winters  v.  Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co     163 

Fed.  106—1549,   1629. 
Winters  v.  Central  I.  R.  Co.,  74  Iowa 

448—1560. 
Winters  v.   Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co     Z9 

Mo.  468—1656. 
Wise  V.   Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.    46 

App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)  246—1693. 
Wise  V.  Covington,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co..  91 

Ky.  537—1170. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 

(The  references  are  to  the  pag'es.) 


cclxxix 


Wise  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  1  H.  & 

N.  63—256. 
Wise  V.  South  Covington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

17  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1359—1170,  1171. 
Wise  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  135  Mo.  App. 

230—1611. 
Wisecarver   v.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.   Co., 

141   Iowa,   121—597,  826,  861,  876, 

916. 
Wisconsin  C«nt.  R.   Co.  v.  Ross,   142 

111.  9—1121. 
Wisconsin   Cent     Ry.   Co.    v.    United 

States,    169    Fed"    76—1816,    1952, 

1973. 
Wisconsin,    etc..    R.    Co.   v.   Jacobson, 

179  U.  S.  287—1894. 
Witbeck    v.    Holland,   45   N.   Y.    13— 

169,  251.  252.  255. 
Witbeck  v.  Holland.  55  Barb.   (X.  Y.) 

443—253.  765. 
Witbeck  v.  Schuvler,  44  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

469—186,   187'. 
Witherbee  v.  Meyer,  155  N.  Y.  446 — 

623. 
Withers  v.  North   Kent  R.   Co.,  3  H. 

<fe  N.  969—314.  1083. 
Withers  v.  North   Kent  R.   Co..  L.  J. 

Exch.  417—1123. 
Withev  V.  Pere  Marquette  R.  Co..  141 

Mich.  412—1375. 
Witsell  V.  West  Asheville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

120  N.  C.  557—1114. 
Witt  V.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

99  Tenn.  442—279. 
Witting  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co..  101 

Mo.  631—456,  550. 
Witting  V.   St.   Ix)uis.  etc..  R.  Co..  28 

Mo.  App.  103 — 4.16.  576. 
Witzler  v.  Collins.  70  :Me.  290—180. 
Wiwirowski    v.    Lake   Shore,   etc.,    R. 

Co.,  124  N.  Y.  424 — 1241. 
Wm.   H.   Blessing  &   Co.   v.   Houston, 

etc.,  R.  Co..  35  Tex.  Civ.  App.  470 

—544. 
Woas   V.    St.    Tyouis   Transit   Co.,    198 

Mo.  604 — 1515. 
Wojfzvnski  v.  Chicago  Consol.  Tr.  Co., 

150  111.  App.  587-1490. 
Wolf  V.  American  Express  Co.,  43  Mo. 

421—372.  457. 
Wolf  V.  Crand   Rapids,  IT.  &  C.  Ry., 

149  Mich.  7.5—1349.  1374.  1382. 
Wolf  V.  Hough.  22  Kan.  O.'iO— 030 
WfK    V.    Summers.    2    Campb.    031 — 

1.304. 


Wolf   V.    Western    Union   Tel.   Co.,   62 

Pa.  St.  83—478. 
Wolfe   V.    American    Express    Co.,    43 

Mo.  421—578. 
Wolff  V.  Central  R.   Co.,   68  Ga.   653 

—749,  1360,  1361. 
Wolfe  V.  Georgia  Ry.,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Ga. 

App.  499—1176. 
Wolfe  V.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  9  Kulp 

(Pa.),  401—539. 
Wolfe  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  97  Mo. 

473—208,  210. 
Wolford  V.   New  York   Cent.,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,   191   N.  Y.  554—1157. 
Wolven    V.    Springfield    Traction   Co., 

143   Mo.  App.  643—1498. 
Wolverhampton,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Lon- 
don, etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  16  Eq.  433 — 

733. 
Womack  v.   Western   Union   Tel.   Co.. 

58  Tex.  176—92. 
Wood  V.  Brooklyn  City  R.  C,  5  App. 

Div.   (N.  Y.)   492—1643. 
Wood   v.   Chicaeo  &   N.   W.   Ry.   Co., 

118  Minn.  362—864. 
Wood  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Iowa, 

491—350.  354,  540,  543. 
Wood  V.  Chester  Traction  Co..  36  Pa. 

Super.  Ct.  48.3—1653. 
Wood  V.  Crocker,  18  Wis.  345 — 27,  29 

259.  386.  391,  395. 
Wood  V.  Cunard  S.  S.  C,  192  Fed.  293 

—1291. 
Wood  V.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 

Mich.   370—1220,   1237,   1567. 
Wood  V.  Metropolitan  St.  Rv.  Co..  181 

Mo.  43.3—1081. 
Wood   V.   Milwaukee,  etc..   R.   Co.,  27 

Wis.  541—380,  391,  400.  770. 
Wood  V.  Now  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

83  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   004-1718. 
Wood  V.  Pliiladelphia.  etc..  R.  Co.,   1 

Boyce  (24  Del.),  330—1049,  1497. 
Wood  V.  Railroad  Company,   101   Ky. 

70.3—1191. 
Wood  V.  Southern  Express  Co.,  95  Ga. 

451-492. 
Wood   V.   Southern   R.   Co.,   118   N.  C 

1050 — 481,  483. 
Wood  V.  The  Fleetwood.  27  Mo.  159 — 

007. 
Woo  Dan  v.  Seattle  EI.  R.  &  P    Co 

5  Wash.  460—1017. 
Woodhurn  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,   R    Co 

40    Fed.   731—430,  454. 


i-rlxxx 


TAlU.l-;  OF  CASKS. 


(Tin*  rt'toit'iKH's  art'  to  tlic  jiagi^s.j 


l\.     Co. 


(N.  Y.) 
R.   Co., 


Cent.  R.  Co.,   1 
447—335,    339, 


W  .Hullnirv     V.     Miiino     lent. 

uMe.hSo  At  I.  T:)3— KilHi. 
Womlon  V.   Austin,  51    Barb. 

0 — 56. 
Woodford  V.   Baltimore  &   O. 

70  \V.  Va.    105— S3S,   S70.  S!)7. 
Wooijfjer  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,   L. 

R.  -2  C.  P.  3 IS— (104. 
WiHidhoui^e   V.    t\un,    95    N.   C.    113— 

IflPJ. 
Wooilinan    v.    Xottin£;liani.    40    N.    H. 

3S7— 531. 
Wtxidniir  V.  Shcrrard.  0  Hun   (N.  Y.) 

3-22—1333. 
WiioilrufT  Sloopinp,  etc..  Coach  Co.  v. 

Diehl.  84  Tnd.  474— (i4. 
Wwds  V.  Devin.   13   111.  746—1292. 
Woods   V.   Railway   Conipanj',   48  Mo. 

App.  125-1415" 
Woods     V.     Southern   Pac.    R.    Co.,    9 

Utah,   1 40— 1030. 
Woodward  v.  Illinois 

Biss.    (U.    S.)    403, 

454,  570,  581.  586,  600.  753.  771. 
Woodward  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  33 

111.  App.  433—304,  395. 
Woolerv  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107 

Ind.  381—1526,  1678. 
Woolsey  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.  Co.,   39 

Neb.  798—1042.   1287. 
Wooster  v.  Tarr,  90  Mass.    (8  Allen) 

270—670. 
Worcester  v.W'estern  R.  Corp..  4  Mete. 

(Mass.)   504—121. 
Worcester  Excursion  Car  Co.  v.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.,  2  Int.  Com.  R.  792 

—1826. 
Worden  v.  Canadian   Pac.   R.  Co.,   13 

Ont.  Rep.  652—243.  270.  583. 
Wornisdorf   v.    Detroit   City    Ry.   Co., 

75  Mich.  472—1080.  155.5'.  1504. 
Worth  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Fed. 

171—1513. 
Worthington   v.   C«ntral   Vermont   R. 

Co..  64  Vt.  107.  23  Atl.  590—1500, 

1577,  1637,  1038. 
Wren  v.   Eastern   Counties  R.   Co.,    1 

L.  T.  N.  S.  5—344. 
W.  R.  Hall  Grain  Co.  v.  Louisville  & 

X.  R.  Co.,  148  Mo.  App.  308—320, 

301. 
Wright  v.  Boughton.  22  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

501—757.  700.  761. 
Wrieht  V.  Caldwell,  3  Mich.  51—184, 

1349. 


Wright    \.  California   Cent.    R.  Co.,  78 

Cai.  300—1071,  1444,  1705. 
\\rigiit  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  l{.  Co.,  4  Colo. 

A|ip.  102—1133,  1160,  1189. 
Wright   V.    Detroit,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    77 

Mich.  123—1587. 
Wright  V.  Gair,  0  Ind.  4U>— 455. 
Wright  V.  (Jreat  Nortiiern   R.  Co.,  L. 

R.  8  Ir.  257—1080. 
Wright  V.  Howe  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  24 

S.  W.  314—200. 
Wright  V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  L. 

T.  N.  S.  830—1066. 
Wright  V.  Maiden,  etc.,  R,  Co.,  4  Allen 

(Mass.),  283—1587. 
Wright  V.  Northampton,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 

122  N.  C.  852—1063,  1005. 
Wright  V.   Northern   Cent.   R.   Co.,   8 

Phila.    (Pa.)    19—208,  559. 
Wright  V.  Orange,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  N. 

J.  L.  774—1420. 
Wright    V.    Pennsylvania     R.    Co..    3 

Pitts.  R.    (Pa.)    116—1103.   1270. 
Wright  V.  Pratt,  31  Wis.  99— .532. 
Wright    V.    Sioux    Falls    Tr.    System, 

28  S.  D.  378—1483. 
Wright  V.   Snell,   5   B.  &   Aid.   350— 

404,   030. 
Weight  V.  United  States.    167   U.  S. 

512—1785. 
W^riglitman   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co,, 

73  Wis.   169—1069. 
Wunsch  V.  North<»rn   Pac.  R.  Co..  62 

Fed.  878-1294.   1300,   1302. 
Wvatt  V.  Citizens'  R.  Co.,  62  Mo.  408 

—1077,    1678. 
Wvatt  V.  Citizens'  R.  Co.,  55  Mo.  485 

—1680. 
Wvatt  V.  Larimer  &   W.  Irrig.  Co.,   1 

Colo.    App.   480—111. 
Wvatt    V.    Pacific    Electric    Rv.    Co., 

'l50    Cal.    170—1521. 
Wvatt  V.  Railway  Co.,  55  Mo.  495 — 

1015. 
Wycko/T  V.  Queens  County  Ferry  Co.. 

52  X.  Y.  32.  35 — .58.  50.  60.  132. 
W\\d  V.  Pickford,  8  :\I.  &  W.  443—0, 

132. 
Wylde  V.  Northern  R.  of  X^.  .T..  53  X'. 

Y.   1.56—778,  779,   1209.  16.33,  1645. 
Wvlde   V.    X'orthern    P.    Co.     14    Abb 

■Pr.  N.  S.   (N.  Y.)   21.3—1486. 
Wyler,  Ackerland  &  Co.  v.  Loui.sville 

&  N.  R.  Co.,  83  Ohio,  293—598. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


ccixxxi 


(Tlie  references  are  to  the  pages.) 


Wvman    v.    Chicago,    'tc,    R.    Co.,    4 

'Mo.  App.  39—779. 
W^man  v.  Lancaster,   32   Fed.   720 — 

i;26. 
Wyman  v.  Xorthern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  34 

Minn.    210—999,    1015,    1258,    1427, 

1429. 
Wvnantskill  Knitting  Co.  v.  Murray, 

90  Hun    (X.  \.),  554—394. 
Wvnn   V.   Central  Park,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

133  X.  Y.  575—1114. 
Wvriek  v.   Missouri,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   74 

Mo.  App.  4GG— 933. 


Y. 

Yancy   v.   Boston   Elev.   Ry.   Co.,   205 

Mass.  162—964,  1159,  1278. 
Yarnell  v.  Kansas  Citv,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

113  Mo.  570—410.   U62,   1245. 
Yarrington    v.    D.^hiware    &    Hudson 

Co.,   143   Fed.  565—1050. 
Vates  V.  Xew  Y^ork  Cent.  R.  Co.,   67 

X.  Y.  100—1722. 
Yazoo  &  M.  \  .  R.  Co.  v.  Blum  Co.,  88 

Miss.  180,  59  So.  92—199,  366,  409. 
Yazoo    &    M.    V.    R.    Co.    v.     Bium 

(Miss.),  42  So.  282—366. 
Yazoo   &    M.    V.    R.    Co.    v.    Bvrd,    89 

Miss.  308—1569,   1650,   1699. 
Yazoo  &   M.  V.  R.  Co.   v.   Cliristuias, 

89  Miss.  386—604.  609. 
Vazoo  V.  ^L  V.  R.  Co.  v.  Fishor  Bros. 

(Miss.),   59   So.  877—143. 
Yazoo  &  M.  V.  R.  Co.  v.  Hughes.  94 

Miss.   242—1358. 
Yazoo  &  M.  V.  R.  Co.  v.  .McKav,  91 

Miss.  138—366. 
Yazoo  &  M.  V.  R.  Co.  v.  Scarles,  85 

Miss.  520—691,  695,  698. 
Yazoo  &  M.  V.   R.  Co.  v.  Shelby,  95 

.Miis.    155 — 1176. 
Yazoo,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Baldwin.    113 

Ttnn.  205—1292. 
^  azoo.  etc..  P..  Co.  v.  Faust   (Miss.), 

32  So.  9—1709. 
^'azoo,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Georgia  Homo 

Ins.  Co.   (Miss.),  37  So.  ,500—1293. 
Yazoo,  etc..  R.   Co.   v.   Humphrey,  83 

.Miss.   721  —  1476. 
Yazoo,    (tc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Millsaps,    70 

Miss.   85.5—319.  357. 
Yazoo,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Pope    (Miss.), 

61    So.  450—825. 


Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Searles,  85  Miss. 

520—653. 
Yeomans  \ .  Contra  Costa  Steam  Xav. 

Co.,    44   Cal.    71—958,    1020,    1054, 

1505. 
Yerkes  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  P.  Co.,  7  Mo. 

App.   265—1115,    1118,    1130,    1505. 
Y'evsack  v.  Lackawanna,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

221  Pa.  493 — 1695. 
Yoakum  v.  Drvden    (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

26  S.  W.  312—183. 
Yoakum   v.   Dunn,    1   Tex.   Civ.   App. 

532—614,  615. 
Yonge   V.   Kinney,   28   Ga.    111—1500. 
Y'onge  V.  Pacific  Mail  Steamship  Co., 

1  Cal.  353—1704. 
York  Co.  V.   Illinois  Central   R.   Co., 

3  WaU.  (U.  S.)   107—441.  453,  577, 

634,  1451,  1456. 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crisp.  14  C.  B. 

527—464,   1464. 
Yorke  Furniture  Co.  v.  Southern  Ry. 

Co.    (N.   C),   78   N.   E.   67—1843, 

1882. 
Y'^orton  v.  Milkaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62 

Wis.  367—1016,   1418. 
Youghioghenv  &  0.  Coal   Co.  v.  Erie 

Ry.  Co.,  24  Ohio  Civ.  Ct.  Rep.  289 

—710. 
Youl  V.  Harl>ottle  Peake,  N.  P.  49— 

234. 
Youmans    v.    Padden,    1   Mich.   X.   P. 

127—1129. 
Youmans  a\  Wabash  R.  Co..   143  Mb. 

App.  .393—970. 
Young   V.    Boston   &  X.   St.   Rv.    Co., 

213  Mass.  267—1525. 
Young  V.  Bransford,  12  Lea   (Tenn.), 

232—1507. 
Young  V.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co..  60  X. 

J.  Law,  19.3—1163. 
Young    V.    Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co..    1 

Manitoba  L.  R.  205—186. 
Young  V.  Citizens  St.  R.  Co.,  148  Ind. 

.54 — 1451. 
Young  V.  East  Alabama  Rv.  Co.,  SO 

Ala.    100—21.5—530. 
Young  V.  Fewson,  8  C.  &  P.  5.")— 1703. 
Young   V.    Hannibal,   etc.,    R.    Co..    79 

Mo.  336—1270. 
Young  V.   Kinney,  28  Ga.    111—1512. 
Young  V.  (J!d  Colony  R.  Co.,  156  Mass. 

178— 1689. 
Young  V.  Missouri  Dec.  R.  Co.,  93  Mo. 

App.  267—1033,  1592. 


CCl.WXll 


TABLE  01'"  CASES. 
Cnie  roloreucos  are  (<>  tlic  [lagi^s.) 


Yi'imj;  V.  Smith,   ;>  Dana    (Ky.)    !H — ■ 

2tl>,  2a\K  :V.K\. 

Young   V.    Ii'xas  v^  T.    K.  (.\>.,  .">1    l.a. 

Ami.  -Jit.")— ii;n,  14:58. 

Young  V.  W  t'steni  Union  Tel.  Co.,  34 

N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  3!M».  6r>  N.  Y.  Ifif) 

Y'ounger   v.    Central    K.    Co.    of    New 

Jersey,  (5:!  Mise.  ivep.    (N.   V.)    1— 

134S». 

Yount    V.    Wabash  R.    Co.,    13G    Mo. 

A  pp.  697—202. 
Yuke  V.  Gronaugli,  2   T^.   Rayui.   867 

—634. 


z. 

Zackry  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Miss. 

746 — 1141. 
Zaiuore  v.  Boston  Kiev.  Rv.  Co.,   198 

Mass.  594—1636. 
Zeccardi  v.  Y'onkers  R.  Co.,  190  N.  Y. 

389-960.    963,     1005,    1088,    1173, 

1185. 
Zeigler  Bros.  v.  Mobile  &  O.  R.  Co., 

87  Miss.  367—1356. 


Zeliir  V.  .Nortli  .lersey  St.  Ky.  Co.   (N. 

Y.),  55  Atl.  95— 16.')7. 
Zeiiip    V.    \\  iliniiif^ton,    ete.,    R.    Co.    9 

Rich.    L.    (S.    C.)    84  —  1451.    1475, 

l.-)62,    1638,    1639,    1640. 
Zerega    v.    Toppe,    Fed.    Cas.    No.     18, 

213    (Abb.  Adin.  397)— 560. 
Zetterberg  v.  (heat  Northern  Ry.  Co., 

117   Minn.  4!t5— 302. 
Zinuuer  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137 

N.  Y.  460—426,  431,  497,  452,  505, 

519,   1463. 
Zinimernian  v.  Denver  Coiisol.  Trans- 
way  Co.  (Colo.).  72  Pac.  807—1692. 
Zinn   V.   New   Jersey   Steamboat   Co., 

49   N.   Y.  442—257,   258,  264,   357, 

384,  401. 
Zollinger  v.  Steamer  Emma,  3  Cent. 

L.  J.  285—2(15. 
Zouch  V.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 

W.  Va.  524—430,  494,  523. 
Zurcher    v.    I'ortland    Ry.,    etc.,    Co. 

(Ore.),   129    i'ac.    126—982. 
Zuniault    V.    Kansas    City,    etc.,    Air 

Line,  71  Mo.  App.  670—1601. 
Zwack  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

160  N.  Y.  362—1588. 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


CHAPTER  I. 
Caekiees  Genekaixt. 


Bectioit     1.  Carrier  defined. 

2.  Classes  of  carriers. 

3.  Carriage  of  goods  a  bailment, 

4.  Private  carriers. 

5.  Duties  and  liabilities  of  private  carriers. 

6.  Private  carriers  without  hire. 

7.  When  transportation  is  gratuitous, 

8.  When  compensation  is  implied. 

9.  Proof  of  negligence. 

10.  Private  carriers  for  hire. 

11.  Liability  of  private  carriers  for  hire. 

12.  Special  contracts  increasing  or  diminishing  liability, 

13.  Lien  of  the  private  carrier. 

§  1.  Carrier  defined. 

A  carrier  has  been  defined  to  be  one  wbo  undertakes  to  trans- 
port goods  from  one  place  to  another.^  But  a  more  accurate  and 
oomprehensive  definition,  perhaps,  would  be  that  a  carrier  is  a 
person  or  corporation  who  undertakes  to  transport  or  convey  goods, 
or  property,  or  persons,  from  one  place  to  another,  gratuitously  or 
for  hire. 

§  2.  Classes  of  carriers. 

Carriers  have  been  divided  into  two  classes:  private  or  special 
carriers,  and  common  or  public  carriers.^     Another  classification 

1.  Bouvier's  L.  Diet.  Vol.  1,  242;  Supp.  302.  73  Misc.  Rep.  414;  Var- 
Parsona,  Contr.  Vol.  1,  642.  ble  v.  Bigley,  14  Bush.   (Ky.)   698,  2P 

2.  Allen  V.  Saokridor,  37  N.  Y.  341;  Am.  Rep.  435;  Vomer  v.  Swoitzer,  32 
Brown  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc..  R.  Co.,  Pa.  St.  208;  Bnuvr.  L.  Diet.  242; 
75  Hun   (N.  Y.),  355,  27  N.  Y.  Supp.  Story  Bailm.  §  495;   6  Cyc.  364- 

69;    O'Rourke    t.    Bates,    133    N.    Y. 


2  THE    LAW    OF    CAPvElERS. 

recognizes  throe  classes;  carriers  without  hire,  carriers  for  hire 
but  not  coniinou  carriers,  and  common  carriers;  or  carriers  with- 
out liire  or  reward,  private  carriers  for  hire,  and  common  or  pub- 
lic carriers  for  hire.^  As  all  carriers  without  hire  may  be  said  to 
bo  private  carriers,  since  common  carriers  when  they  carry  gratu- 
itously become  in  fact  private  carriers  as  to  the  particular  goods 
or  transaction,  the  classification  of  carriers  into  private  carriers 
without  hire,  private  carriers  for  hire,  and  common  carriers, 
seems  to  best  express  the  differences  in  character  and  liability 
which  distinguish  them.  The  classification  of  carriers  is  import- 
ant because  it  enters  largely  into  the  determination  of  the  legal 
responsibility  of  the  carrier.  The  class  among  carriers  to  which 
a  particular  carrier  is  to  be  assigTied  depends  upon  the  nature  of 
his  business,  the  character  in  which  he  holds  himself  out  to  the 
public,  the  terms  of  his  contract,  and  his  relations  generally  to 
the  parties  with  whom  he  deals  and  the  public.  The  above  classi- 
fications include  carriers  by  land  and  by  water,  as  well  as  carriers 
of  goods,  carriers  of  passengers,  and  carriers  of  live  stock,  and  the 
liability  of  the  carrier  is  also  to  a  considerable  extent  determined 
from  or  affected  by  whichever  of  these  latter  classes  he  belongs  to. 

§  3.  Carriage  of  goods  a  bailment. 

The  carriage  of  goods  or  the  baggage  of  a  passenger  is  a  bail- 
ment, the  goods  or  baggage  being  delivered  to  the  carrier  on  a 
condition,  express  or  implied,  for  the  purpose  of  carriage  to  their 
destination  and  delivery  according  to  the  directions  of  the  con- 
signor or  owner.  The  carriage  of  goods  or  baggage,  when  it  is 
gratuitous  or  without  compensation  to  the  carrier,  belongs  to  that 
class  of  bailments  known  as  mandates,  a  species  of  bailment  where 
the  bailee  receives  goods,  and  without  reward  undertakes  to  do 
some  act  about  them,  or  simply  to  carry  them  from  place  to  place.* 
The  carriage  of  goods  or  baggage,  where  the  carrier  is  paid  for  the 
service,  is  of  that  class  of  bailments  known  as  a  hiring,  which  is 
a  bailment  of  goods  always  for  a  reward,  and  among  which  bail- 

3.  Amer.  &  Eng.  Ency.  of  Law,  Ist  4.  See  §  6,  post;  Edwards,  Bailm. 

ed.,  Vol.  2,  p.  771;  Hutch.  Carr.  §  15.      §  3. 


CARRIERS   GENERALLY.  3 

ments  is  tlie  hire  of  carriage.^  Private  carriers,  wlietlier  without 
liire  or  for  hire,  are  strictly  hailees  and  assume  simply  the  duties 
and  liabilities  of  bailees.  Their  responsibility  does  not  necessarily 
arise  from  an  undertaking  to  carry  and  is  determined  by  the  rules 
governing  the  responsibility  of  bailees.  The  foundation  of  tlie 
bailee's  liability,  except  in  the  case  of  common  carriers  of  goods 
and  innkeepers,  is  n^ligence,  and  negligence  in  some  degree 
must  be  shown  to  make  the  bailee  liable.  But  the  liability  of  the 
common  carrier  of  goods,  like  that  of  the  innkeeper,  is  extraordi- 
nary and  exceptional,  and  is  based  upon  reasons  of  public  policy, 
and  not  upon  the  contract  of  bailment,  although  the  liability  cannot 
exist  without  the  bailment.  The  common  carrier  of  goods  is  an 
insurer  of  the  safety  of  the  goods  and  the  question  of  negligence, 
as  will  be  hereafter  seen,  ordinarily  does  not  enter  into  the  de- 
termination of  his  liability.®  But  the  question  of  negligence  does 
arise  when  he  seeks  to  avail  himself  of  any  of  the  exceptions  which 
the  law  allows,  or  his  contract  makes,  to  his  general  liability  as 
an  insurer,  and  it  is  charged  that  but  for  his  negligence  the  loss 
would  not  have  occurred.  And  the  liability  of  a  common  carrier 
of  passengers  for  an  injury  to  a  passenger  generally  depends  ex- 
clusively upon  the  question  of  negligence.''  The  law  as  to  the 
liability  of  bailees  in  general  for  negligence,  adverted  to  in  a  sub- 
sequent section,  thus  frequently  furnishes  the  rule  by  which  the 
common  carrier  as  well  as  other  bailees  are  held  responsible  for 
negligence.  But  while  the  liability  of  all  those  carriers  whose  lia- 
bility depends  entirely  upon  negligence  is  determined  by  the  gen- 
eral law  of  bailments,  that  law,  not  admitting  the  responsibility  of 
the  bailee  when  loss  cr  injury  has  occurred  without  negligence,  has 
generally  but  little  application  to  the  liability  of  common  carriers 
of  goods,  who  are  held  to  be  insurers  against  all  accidents  not  at- 
tributable directly  to  the  acts  of  God  or  of  the  public  enemy. 

§  4.  Private  carriers. 

A  private  carrier  is  one  who  agrees,  by  special  agreement  or 
contract,  to  transport  persons  or  property  from  one  place  to  an- 

6.  See  §  10,  po8t;  Edwards,  Bailm.  6.  Son  Chap.  II,  §  1. 

I  3.  7.  See  Carriers  of  Passengers. 


4  THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

Other,  cithrr  gratuitously  or  for  hire;  one  who  undortalcos  for  the 
transportation  in  a  parliouhir  instance  only,  not  making  it  a  voca- 
tion, nor  holding  himself  out  to  the  puhlic  ready  to  act  for  all 
who  desiro  his  services.*  Common  carriers,  however,  hold  them- 
selves out  to  carry  lor  all  persons  indiscriminately.*  Private  or 
special  carriers  are  not  subject  to  the  exceptional  or  extraordinary 
duties  and  liabilities  of  common  carriers.  They  are  not  bound 
by  virtue  of  their  employment  or  vocation  to  receive  and  carry  all 
pei-sons  or  the  goods  of  all  who  apply  to  them,  but  they  may  carry 
for  whom  they  cliooso  and  for  such  compensation  and  at  such 
times  as  they  may  fix  or  as  may  be  agreed  upon.  They  are  not 
in  any  sense  public  servants  like  common  carriers.  But  they  may 
by  special  contract  assume  the  duties  of  common  or  public  carriers 
and  thus  make  themselves  liable  as  common  carriers. 


§  5.  Duties  and  liabilities  of  private  carriers. 

Private  carriers,  wdiether  carriers  without  hire  or  carriers  for 
hire,  as  has  been  stated,  are  strictly  bailees,  in  no  way  distinguish- 
able from  ordinary  bailees  as  to  their  responsibility,  and  are  sub- 
ject only  to  the  duties  and  liabilities  of  bailees,  and  their  liability 
is  determined  by  the  degree  of  negligence  of  which  they  are 
guilty.^"  The  principles  of  the  law  as  to  the  liabilities  of  bailees 
in  general  for  negligence  which  form  a  part  of  the  law  of  bailments, 
are  applicable  in  determining  the  liability  of  private  carriers. 
These  principles  or  rules  may  be  stated  as  follows:  When  the 
bailment  is  for  the  sole  benefit  of  the  bailor,  the  law  requries  only 
slight  diligence  on  the  part  of  the  bailee,  and  holds  him  liable  only 
for  sross  neclisience.  When  the  bailment  is  for  the  sole  benefit  of 
the  bailee,  the  law  requires  great  diligence  on  his  part,  and  holds 
him  liable  for  slight  negligence.  When  the  bailment  is,  or  is  in- 
tended to  be,  reciprocally  beneficial  to  both  parties,  the  law  ro 
quires  ordinary  diligence  on  the  part  of  the  bailee,  and  holds  hink 
liable  for  ordinary  negligence.^^ 

8.  §§  6,  10,  post.  11.  Anjrell,  Carra.    (5th  ed.)    §   11; 

9.  See  Common  Camera.  Hutch.    Carra.    §    8;    Amer.    &    Eng. 

10.  §  3,  ante;  Allen  v.  Sackrider,  Ency.  of  Law  (1st  ed.),  VoL  2,  p. 
37  N.  Y.  341 ;  Fish  v.  Clark,  49  N.  Y.       772. 

122,  2  Lans.  (N.  Y.)   178. 


CxiKRIERS   GENERALLY.  5 

§  6.  Private  carriers  without  hire. 

Carriers  vvho  carry  goods  g-ratuitously,  without  any  compensa- 
tion directly  or  indirectly,  are  liable  as  gratuitous  bailees  or  man- 
dataries only.^"  It  was  formerly  held  that  such  carriers  were  only 
liable  for  gToss  negligence  and  required  to  exercise  only  slight 
care  and  diligence. ^^    But  all  distinctions  in  the  degrees  of  negli- 


12.  Citizens'  Bank  v.  Nantucket 
Steamboat  Co.,  2  Story  (U.  S.)  16; 
Pender  v.  Robbins,  6  Jones  L.  (N.  C.) 
207;  Coggs  V.  Bernard,  2  Ld.  Raym. 
909,  1  Smith's  L.  Cas.  199;  Hutton 
V.  Osborne,  1  Sel.  N.  P.  420;  Mobile, 
etc.,  K.  Co.  V.  Hopkins,  41  Ala.  486, 
94  Am.  Dec.  607;  Robinson  v.  Thread- 
gill,  13  Ired.  L.   (N.  C.)   39. 

13.  Coggs  V.  Bernard,  2  Ld.  Eaym. 
•J09,  1  Smith's  L.  Cas.  199;  Hutton  v. 
Osborne,  1  Sel.  N.  P.  420;  Colyar  v. 
Taylor,  1  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  372,  where 
T.  gratuitously  undertool:  to  receive 
$1,500  for  C.  at  N.,  and  deliver  it  to 
him  at  W.,  where  they  both  resided, 
:ind,  after  drawing  the  money  went 
CO  a  public  fair,  where  he  met  E.,  a 
townsman,  who  was  going  home  be- 
fore he  was,  and,  stepping  a  little 
aside  from  the  crowd,  gave  E.  the 
money  to  carry  to  C,  and,  on  his  way 
home  in  a  crowded  car,  E.  had  his 
pocket  picked  of  the  money,  T.  was 
held  liable  for  the  loss,  as  he  had 
violated  his  trust  and  was  guilty  of 
a  conversion  of  the  property,  and  of 
gross  negligence. 

Kirtland  v.  Montgomery,  1  S'van 
(Tenn.),  457,  wherein  it  was  said: 
"As  a  general  rule,  a  niiwdatary 
whose  engagement  is  m 'rely  gratu- 
itous, is  bound  to  ordinary  diligence 
and  liable  only  for  gross  neglect  or 
bre.'icli  of  good  faith.  It  is.  however, 
a  well  Bottled  rule  that  if  a  manda- 
tary enter  ujion  the  nxecution  of  busi- 
ness siiliiiiittod  to  him,  he  is  bound 
ti<   ••vp  a  df'gii'e  of  diligence  and   at- 


tention adequate  to  the  performance 
of  his  undertaking;  if  he  do  not,  and 
damage  ensue,  he  is  liable  as  a  man- 
datary for  his  misfeasance." 

In  Jenkins  v.  Motlow,  1  Sneed. 
(Tenn.)  253,  60  Am.  Dec.  154,  the 
court,  referring  to  this  extract,  said: 
■'  The  word  '  ordinary '  in  this  ex- 
tract is  not  technical  or  correct,  but 
the  rule  as  to  the  liability  of  a  gra- 
tuitous bailee  is  clearly  and  truly 
stated." 

A  mere  mandatary  is  liable  only 
for  gross  negligence.  Stanton  v. 
Bell,  2  Hawks  (N.  C),  145;  Sodow- 
sky  V.  McFarland,  3  Dana  (Ky.), 
205;  Tracy  v.  Wood,  3  Mason  (U. 
S.),  132;  Tompkins  v.  Saltmarsh,  14 
S.  &  R.  (Pa.)  375;  Bland  v.  Womack, 
2  Murph.  (N.  C.)  373;  Beardslee  v. 
Richardson,  11  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  25; 
Anderson  v.  Foresman,  Wright 
(Ohio),   598. 

Gross  negligence,  in  such  case,  is 
the  omission  of  that  care  wliicli  bai- 
lees without  hire,  or  other  manda- 
taries, of  common  prudence,  are  ac- 
customed to  take  of  property  of  the 
like  kind.  Money  requires  more  care 
than  common  articles  of  property. 
Tracy  v.  Wood,  3  Mason  ( U.  S. ) ,  132 ; 
Anderson  v.  Foresman,  Wriglit 
(Ohio),  598;  Bland  v.  Womack,  3 
Murph.    (N.  C.)    373. 

Carrier  not  liable.  Where  gold 
dust  was  taken  on  board  the  steamer 
New  World  to  bo  carried  gratui- 
tously from  Sacramento  to  San  Fran- 
cisco,   the    clerk    of    the    boat    hnving 


THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 


gonce  are  now  generally  regarded  by  the  courts  as  unimportant 
and   as   impracticable   in   determining   liability   for   ucgligcuce/* 


given  the  owners  of  the  dust  actual 
notice  that  he  would  receive  gold 
dust  or  money  only  on  condition  that 
iio  charge  should  be  made  and  no  re- 
biHtn.-ibiiity  ineurreil,  and  the  gold 
du>t  was  s-toien  from  tlie  boat  with- 
out any  negligence  on  the  part  of  its 
oJTiccrs,  the  owners  of  the  boat  were 
held  not  liable  for  the  loss.  Fay  v. 
bteamer  New  World,  1  Cal.  348. 

14.  Perkins  v.  New  York  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  24  N.  Y.  196,  82  Am.  Dec.  282, 
wherein  the  court  said:  "The  diffi- 
culty of  defining  gross  negligence  and 
the  intrinsic  uncertainty  pertaining 
to  the  question  as  one  of  law,  and  the 
other  impracticability  of  establish- 
ing any  precise  rule  on  the  subject, 
renders  it  unsafe  to  base  any  legal 
decision  on  distinctions  of  the  de- 
grees of  negligence."  Smith  v.  New 
York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24  N.  Y.  222; 
Nellis'  St.  Rd.  Acct.  Law,  pp.  22,  23. 
I  Tlie  same  view  has  been  taken  in 
other  states: 

Ala. — Stringer  v.  Alabama  R.  Co., 
99  Ala.  397,  13  So.  75. 
j      Colo. — Denver,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Pe- 
terson   (Colo.),  69  Pac.  578. 

j/e. — Storer  v.  Gowen,  18  Me.  177. 

Mass. — Lane  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
112  Mass.  455,  22  Am.  L.  Reg.  N.  S. 
126,  note. 

Mo. — McPheeters  v.  Hannibal,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  45  Mo.  22. 

N.  H. — State  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  58  N.  H.  410. 

tJ.  C. — McAdoo  V.  Richmond,  et«., 
R.  Co.,  105  N.  C.  140. 

Tenn. — Mariner  v.  Smith,  5  Heisk. 
(Tenn.)    208. 

yf._Brigg3  v.  Taylor,  28  Vt.  180. 

The    doctrine   has    also   been   criti- 


cised in  the  United  States  courts  and 
in  England. 

U.  6'.— The  Steamboat  New  World 
V.  King,  16  How.  (U.  S.)  474;  Mil- 
waukee, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Arms,  91  U. 
S.  494;  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
I^ckwood,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.)  357; 
HoUaday  v.  Kennard,  12  Wall.  ( U. 
S.)  254;  Purple  v.  Union  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  114  Fed.  123,  51  C.  C.  A.  564, 
57  L,  R.  A.  700,  the  words  "  gross  " 
and  "  reckless,"  as  applied  to  negli- 
gence per  se,  have  no  legal  signinfi- 
cance  which  imports  other  than 
simple  negligence  or  want  of  due 
care,  and  are  not  the  equivalent  of 
"  willful  "  or  "  wanton." 

E7ig. — Hinton  v.  Dibbin,  2  Ad.  & 
El.  N.  S.  661,  42  E.  C.  L  .847,  2  Q. 

B.  646,  2  G.  «&  D.  36,  6  Jur.  601,  "  it 
may  well  be  doubted  whether  be- 
tween gross  neglignece  and  negli- 
gence merely  any  intelligible  distinc- 
tion exists."  Grill  v.  General  Iron 
Screw  Collier  Co.,  L.  R.  1  C.  P.  612; 
Beal  V.  South  Devon  R.  Co.,  3  H.  & 

C.  341;  Wyld  V.  Pickford,  2  M.  & 
W.  443;  Wilson  v.  Brett,  11  M.  & 
W.  113;  Armistead  v.  Wilde,  17  Q. 
B.  261,  71  E.  C.  L.  261;  Austin  v. 
Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  C.  B. 
454,  70  E.  C.  L.  454,  11  Eng.  L.  & 
Eq.  512. 

Any  negligence  is  gross  in  one  who 
undertakes  a  duty  and  fails  to  per- 
form it.  The  term  "  gross  negli- 
gence "  is  applied  to  the  case  of  a 
gratuitous  bailee,  who  is  not  liable 
unless  he  fails  to  exercise  the  degrea 
of  skill  which  he  possesses.  Lord  v. 
Midland  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  2  C.  P.  339; 
Cashill  v.  Wright,  6  El.  &  Bl.  891,  88 
E.  C.  L.  891;  Giblin  v.  McMuIlen,  L. 
R.  2  P.  C.  317. 


CAKRIERS   GENERALLY.  7 

Althougli  a  person  tmdertaking  gratuitously  to  perform  an  act 
with  respect  to  the  property  of  another  is  not  bound  by  his  under- 
taking," yet  if  the  act  is  performed  he  will  be  held  responsible 
for  any  injury  resulting  from  a  want  of  due  care.^®  What  is  gross 
negligence  or  slight  negligence  can  only  be  determined  by  the  cir- 
cumstances of  a  given  case,  and  gross  negligence  is  not  shown 
where  the  evidence  is  that  reasonable  and  proper  care  was  exer- 
cised." Negligence  is  essentially  always  a  question  of  fact  and 
its  determination  depends  necessarily  upon  the  particular  circum- 
stances in  each  case.  The  private  carrier  without  hire  is  bound 
to  use  proper  and  reasonable  care  for  the  safety  of  the  goods  com- 
mitted to  his  charge,  and  the  test  of  what  is  such  proper  and  rea- 
sonable care  seems  to  be  that  which  a  man  of  ordinary  prudence 
would  have  used  under  the  particular  circumstances.  The  test 
must  be  applied  with  reference  to  the  article,  the  nature  of  the 
trust,  and  the  circumstances  attending  its  execution,  and  thus 
applied  what  would  be  reasonable  and  proper  care  in  the  case  of 
a  private  carrier  without  hire  may  not  be  the  same  measure  of 
care  required  of  a  private  carrier  for  hire.^^  If  a  person  who  has 
undertaken  to  carry  goods  gratuitously  takes  the  same  care  of  the 
goods  intrusted  to  him  as  of  his  own,  he  is  not  liable,  if  loss  ensues, 
but  he  is  responsible  for  a  loss  resulting  from  a  want  of  suck 

19 

care. 

§  7.  When  transportation  is  gratuitous. 

In  order  to  determine  the  question  of  negligence  it  is  frequently 

15.  Thorne  v.  Dcas,  4  Johns.  (N.  was  not  gratuitous  and  the  goods 
Y.)  84 ;  McGee  V.  Bast,  6  J.  J.  Marsh  were  deposited  under  such  circum- 
(Ky.),  455.  stances    as    showed    the    exercise    of 

16.  Melbourne  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  reasonable  care  as  bailee  by  the  de- 
R.  Co.,  88  Ala.  443,  6  So.  762.  fendant,  after  the  termination  of  its 

17.  Ivouisville.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ger-  liability  as  a  carrier,  it  was  held  not 
son,  102  Ala.  409,  14  So.  873.  liable.     Adams   Exp.   Co.   v.   Darnell, 

Gross  negligence.     A  carrier,  with-  31  Ind.  20,  99  Am.  Dec.  582;  Howard 

out  compensation,  was  held  liable  on  Exp.  Co.  v.  Wile,  64  Pa.  St.  201. 

the   ground    of    gross    negligence,   be-  18.  Philadolphia,    etc.,    R     Co.    v. 

cause  he  had   deposited  the  goods  in  Derby,    14    How.    (U.    S.)    468-    Tre- 

a  place  which   was  peculiarly  unsafe  leven    v.    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    89 

at  the  time,  by  reason  of  an  antici-  Wis.    598;    Coggs   v.   Bernard,   2   Ld, 

pated  raid  of  hostile  troops.     Adams  Raym.  909,  1  Smith's  L.  Cas.   199. 

Exp.  Co.  V.  Cressop,  6  Bush.    (Ky.)  19.  Anderson  v.  Foresman,  Wright 

672.     But,   where   the   transportation  (Ohio),  598. 


o  TUE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

necessary  to  determine  in  the  first  instance  whether  or  not  the 
tiansportation  was  actually  gratnitous.  Whore  the  carrier  re- 
ceives goods,  to  be  carried  to  a  certain  place,  and  there  sold  in  tho 
nsnal  coui-se  of  business  for  the  ordinary  freight,^''  or  for  a  cer- 
tain freight,-'^''  or  goods,  in  the  usual  course  of  business,  are  shipped 
on  freight,  consigned  to  the  carrier  for  sale  and  returns/**  the 
carrier  is  liable  as  well  for  the  payment  of  the  proceeds  or  to  ac- 
count for  the  goods  to  the  shipper  as  for  the  safe  carriage  of  the 
goods.  Whether  the  return  cargo  is  in  money  or  in  goods  the 
frei"-ht  of  the  cargo  is  compensation  for  the  whole.  So,  a  person 
traveling  on  a  train  in  charge  of  cattle  which  are  being  shipped, 
is  not  a  gratuitous  passenger,  but  a  passenger  for  hire;  the  con- 
sideration for  his  passage  is  the  service  he  renders  in  taking  care 
of  the  cattle,  or  it  is  foimd  in  the  charges  made  for  shipping  the 
cattle.^^  Proof  of  the  usage  of  the  clerks  of  steamboats  to  receive 
and  carry  packages  from  one  port  to  another,  without  hire,  in  the 
expectation  that  the  boat  would  be  preferred  by  the  parties  for 
the  shipment  of  freight,  is  insufficient  to  bind  the  owners,  as  car- 
riers, because  no  certain  or  fixed  standard  of  remuneration  is 
shown,  nor  that  the  consignee  of  the  package  would  be  liable  to 
make  any  return  for  the  risk  and  labor  incurred ;  and  because  it 
is  not  shown  that  such  usage  had  grown  up  with  the  consent  of 
the  owners  of  vessels,  or  that  it  was  more  than  a  mere  accomoda- 
tion usage.^     A  railroad  company  which  contracts  for  the  trans- 

20.  Kemp   v.    Coughtry,    11   Johns.  owner  of  the  vessel;    Emery  v.  Her- 

(N.  Y.)   107,  it  appearing  that  it  was  sey,  4  Me.  407,  16  Am.  Dec.  208. 
a  part  of  the  duty  of  the  carrier,  and  21.  Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.   v.    Ivey, 

in   the  usual   course   of   employment,  71  Tex.  409,  9  S.  W.  346,  1  L.  R.  A. 

to  sell  the  goods  and  bring  back  the  500,   10  Am.   St.  Rep.   758;    Pennsyl- 

money  where  no  special   instructions  vania  R.  Co.  v.  Henderson,  51  Pa.  St. 

were  "iven.  315;    Cleveland,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Cur- 

20a.  Harrington     v.     McShane,     2  ran,  19  Ohio  St.  1,  2  Am.  Rep.  362; 

Watts    (Pa.),  443,  27  Am.  Dec.   321,  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nicldess,  71  Ind. 

wherein   the   owners   of    a  steamboat  271. 

were    held,    under    the  usage    of    the  22.  Cincinnati  &  L.  Mail  Line  Co. 

Western   waters,   to   act   as   common  v.    Boal,    15    Ind.    345;    Whitmore    v. 

carriers,    both   in   the   selling   of   the  The  Caroline,  20  Mo.  513,  the  owners 

produce    and    in    bringing    back    the  of  a  steamboat  are  not  liable  for  the 

money,   and   therefore   liable   for   the  loss  of  money  intrusted  to  the  clerk 

lo.=s  of  tlie  goods  by  fire.  by  a  passcnj^er,  unless  a  known  and 

20b.  Moseley  v.  Lord,  2  Conn.  389,  established  usage  for  a  steamboat  to 

where  the  master  of  a  vessel  gave  a  carry  money  for  hire,  on  account  of 

bill  of  lading  with  the  assent  of  the  the   owners,    is   shown;    Chouteau    v. 


CARRIERS   GENERALLY.  9 

portation  of  the  tanks  of  an  oil  company,  and  their  return,  wken 
emptied,  is  subject  to  the  liabilities  of  a  common  carrier  with  re- 
spect to  the  return  of  the  empty  tanks,  though  no  bill  of  lading 
is  furnished  therefor,  nor  any  additional  compensation  paid,  inde- 
pendently of  the  freight  for  the  transportation  of  the  oil.^^  Like- 
wise, where  the  undertaking  of  a  carrier  is  that  persons  sending 
grain  over  the  route  are  entitled  to  have  the  empty  bags  returned 
without  charge  for  freight,  this  is  not  to  be  deemed  a  gratuitous 
bailment,  so  as  to  exempt  the  carrier  from  liability  for  loss  of  the 
bags  except  that  arising  from  gross  negligence.  The  freight  paid 
on  the  full  bags  is  a  consideration  both  for  the  transportation  of 
the  full  bags  and  the  return  of  the  empty  ones.^* 

§  8.  When  compensation  may  be  implied. 

The  fact  that  a  carrier  did  not  intend  to  charge  for  the  trans- 
portation of  a  certain  chattel,  but  meant  to  carry  it  gratuitously, 
if  not  communicated  to  the  owner,  does  not  render  the  bailment 
a  gratuitous  one  so  as  to  exempt  him  from  loss,  except  for  gross 
negligence.  Delivery  of  property  to  a  common  carrier,  for  trans- 
portation, raises  an  implied  obligation  to  pay  freight,  and  renders 
the  carrier  liable  accordingly,  unless  the  contrary  is  agreed  upon. 
ISTo  express  agreement  having  been  made  as  to  compensation,  the 
carrier  is  entitled  to  it  if  he  choose  to  demand  it.^    It  is  not  nec- 

The  St.  Anthony,  16  ]Mo.  216,  proof  v.  Motlow,  1  Sneed.  (Tenn.)  248. 
of  a  custom  by  boats  to  carry  money  cited  under  §  6,  where  the  deposit  of 
for  customers  to  gain  patronage  does  money  by  a  passenger,  for  the  ear- 
not  establish  a  custom  to  carry  it  for  riage  of  which  no  extra  charge  was 
hire.  See  Rogers  v.  Head,  Cro.  Jac.  made,  was  held  to  render  the  carrier 
262,  where  it  was  held  when  plain-  liable  to  plaintiff  only  as  a  manda- 
tiff  had  undertaken  with  defendant  tary  or  depository,  having  failed  to 
"  reasonably  to  content  him  for  the  use  ordinary  diligence  under  the  cir- 
carriage,"  the  latter  was  liable  as  a  cumstances.  This  case  would  seem 
private  carrier  for  hire,  although  to  be  analogous  to  those  cited  in  the 
there  was  no  proof  of  a  specific  com-  text  and  the  carrier  to  be  liable  as  a 
pfn«ation  having  been  paid  him.  common   carrier  as  to  the  money  as 

23.  Spears  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  he  is  of  the  passenger's  baggage,  the 
Co.,  67  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  513;  Mallory  v.  price  paid  for  the  passage  being  also 
Tioga  R.  Co.,  32  TIow.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  the  hire  for  the  carriage  of  whatever 
616,  afTg.  39  Barb.   (N.  Y.)   488.  the    passenger    commits    to    the    cu»- 

24.  Pierce    v.    Milwaukee,    rtc,    R.  tody  of  the  carrier. 

Co.,  23  Wis.  387;   Aldridge  v.  Groat  25.  Gray   v.    Missouri    Riv.    Packet 

Western  R.  Co.,  15  C.  B.  N.  S.  582,  Co.,  64  Mo.  47;  Kirtland  v.  Montgon*- 
tOO  E.  C.  L.  582.     Compare  Jenkins       ery,  1  Swan    (Tenn.),  452. 


10 


THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 


essary  to  constitute  one  a  common  carrier  that  a  stipulation  should 
bo  entered  into  as  to  the  amount  of  freight  to  be  paiJ.  But  unless 
a  right  to  compensation  exists,  the  common  law  liability  of  a  com- 
mon carrier  is  not  created,  though  there  may  be  the  responsibility 
of  a  mandatary  incurred.^*  Though  there  be  no  stipulated  price 
for  the  service,  yet  if  the  usage  in  such  cases  implies  an  agree- 
ment to  pay  the  carrier  for  suc^  service,  he  will  be  liable  as  a 
common  carrier." 

§  9.  Proof  of  negligence. 

A  private  carrier  without  hire  is  a  mandatary  or  bailee  without 
reward  and  is  liable  in  all  cases  for  gross  negligence  only,  and  this 
must  be  proved  against  him.  If  he  fails  to  deliver  the  goods  ac- 
cording to  his  undertaking,  in  order  to  make  him  liable  for  the 
loss,  proof  must  be  made  of  a  demand  and  refusal,  or  that  the 
property  was  lost  by  the  carrier's  negligence.^''  It  then  devolves 
upon  the  carrier  to  account  for  the  loss  by  showing  tbat  it  occurred 
under  circumstances  such  as  to  relieve  him  from  liability.^*  The 
statements  made  by  the  carrier  at  the  time  of  the  demand  and 


26.  Knox  V.  Rives,  14  Ala.  249,  48 
Am.  Dec.  97.  The  owner  of  a  private 
ferry,  altliough  on  a  road  not  opened 
by  public  authority,  or  repaired  by 
public  labor,  may  so  use  it  as  to  sub- 
ject himself  to  the  liability  of  a 
common  carrier,  if  he  undertakes,  for 
Lire,  to  convey  across  the  river  all 
persons  indifferently,  with  their  car- 
riages and  goods;  but  this  is  a  ques- 
tion for  the  jury.  Littlejohn  v. 
Jones,  2  McMull.  (S.  C.)  365,  39  Am. 
Dec.  132. 

27.  Kirtland  v.  Montgomery,  1 
Swan    (Tenn.),  452. 

28.  Beardslce  v.  Richardson,  11 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  25,  25  Am.  DfC.  596; 
Lampley  v.  Scott,  24  Miss.  528.  If 
the  goods  be  taken  from  him  by  one 
having  paramount  title,  he  is  dis- 
charged. Edson  V.  Weston,  7  Cow. 
(N.  Y.)  278;  Beardslee  v.  Richard- 
eon,  supra. 

29.  Beardslee         v.         Richard«on, 


supra;  Darling  v.  Younker,  37  Ohio 
St.  493,  41  Am.  Rep.  532.  A  bailor 
who  entrusts  his  goods,  knowing  how 
and  where  the  bailee  will  keep  them, 
assents  to  such  keeping,  and  can 
maintain  no  action  for  their  loss. 
Knowles  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38 
Me.  55,  61  Am.  Dec.  234. 

A  person  who  undertakes,  without 
reward,  to  sell  and  dispose  of  the 
property  of  another  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  though  it  was  his  own,  is  lia- 
ble for  gross  negligence,  such  as  will 
imply  fraud,  and  is  not  bound,  under 
such  a  contract,  "  to  dispose  of  the 
same  as  a  prudent  man  would  of  his 
own."  McLean  v.  Rutherford,  8  Mo. 
109. 

A  bailee  acting  gratuitously  in  car- 
rying money,  which  is  lost,  while 
other  money,  which  is  his  own,  is  not 
lost,  is  liable  for  the  loss.  Bland  v. 
Womack,  2  Murph.    (N.  C.)    373. 

A  bailee,  without  reward,  who  has 


CARRIERS   GENERALLY. 


11 


refusal  to  deliver  the  property,  in  which  he  gives  an  account  of 
the  loss  by  accident,  or  theft,  with  the  attendant  circumstances, 
are  part  of  the  res  gestae,  and  admissible  as  evidence  in  his  favor.** 


§  10.  Private  carriers  for  hire. 

A  private  carrier  for  hire  is  one  who,  without  being  engaged 
in  such  business  as  a  public  employment,  undertakes  to  carry  and 
deliver  goods  in  a  particular  case,  for  hire  or  reward.^^  A  private 
carrier  for  hire  is  one  who  acts  in  a  particular  case  for  hire  or 
reward.^^*  One  who  is  the  owner  of  a  vessel,  and  who  is  especially 
employed  to  transport  a  cargo  of  grain,  is  not  a  common  or  publio 
carrier,  but  only  a  private  carrier  for  hire.^^  All  persons  who 
carry  under  a  special  contract,  as  the  driver  of  a  stagecoach,  occa- 
sionally taking  packages  to  carry  for  compensation,  are  private 


used  money  with  which  he  is  in- 
trusted, and  is  afterwards  robbed  of 
other  money,  must  bear  the  loss.  An- 
derson V.  Foresman,  Wright  (Ohio), 
598. 

If  the  bailee  "  keeps  the  goods 
bailed  to  him,  but  as  he  keeps  his 
own,  though  he  keeps  his  own  negli- 
gently, yet  he  is  not  chargeable  for 
them,  for  the  keeping  of  them  as  he 
keeps  his  own  is  an  argument  of  hii 
honesty."  Coggs  v.  Bernard,  2  Ld. 
Eaym.  909,  1  Smith's  L.  Cas.  199. 
Compare  Doorman  v.  Jenkins,  2  Ad. 
&  EI.  256,  29  E.  C.  L.  80;  Rooth  V. 
Wilson,  1  B.  &  Aid.  59. 

30.  Lamplcy  v.  Scott,  24  Miss. 
528;  Tompkins  v.  Saltmarsh,  14  S. 
&  R.  (Pa.)  275.  "That  a  person 
robbed  instantly  states  the  fact,  insti- 
tutes a  search,  and  prosecutes  the 
ofTender,  are  circumstances  for  the 
jury.  It  would  bo  dillicult  to  estab- 
lish such  facts  except  by  the  attend- 
ing circumstances.  Such  evidinoe  is 
competent,  as  it  would  be  for  the 
plaintifT  to  show  that  at  the  time  of 
the  alleged  robbery  the  defendant  re- 


mained silent,  neither  instituting 
search  or  prosecution."  Anderson  v. 
Foresman,   Wright    (Ohio),   598. 

31.  Penniwill  v.  Cullen,  5  Harr. 
(Del.)  238;  Self  v.  Dunn,  42  Ga. 
528,  5  Am.  Rep.  544;  Littlejohn  v. 
Jones,  2  McMulI.  L.  (S.  C.)  306,  39 
Am.  Dec.  132;  Sheldon  v,  Robinson, 
7  N.  H.  157,  26  Am.  Dec.  726; 
Samms  v.  Stewart,  20  Ohio  69,  55 
Am.  Dec.  445;  Moriarty  v.  Harn- 
den's  Express,  1  Daly  (N.  Y.)  227; 
Rogers  v.  Head,  Cro.  Jac.  262.  One 
who  is  employed  for  hire  pro  hao 
vice  only,  and  does  not  make  the 
carriage  of  goods  his  constant  em- 
ployment, is  not  liable  as  a  common 
carrier.  Anon.  v.  Jackson,  1  Hayw. 
(N.  C.)  14;  Satterlee  v.  Groat,  1 
Wond.    (N.  Y.)    272. 

31a.  Jackson  Architectural  Iron 
Works  V.  Ilurlbut,  158  N.  Y.  34,  53 
N.  E.  665,  70  Am.  St.  Rep.  432;  Fish 
V.  Clark,  49  N.  Y.  122;  O'Rourke  v. 
Bates.  133  N.  Y.  Supp.  303,  73  Misc. 
Rep.  414. 

32.  Allen  v.  Sackrider,  37  N,  Y. 
341. 


J3  THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

carriers.''  One  who  is  cniplovcd  to  tour  down  a  houso  for  another 
and  deliver  the  hriok  and  lumber  at  another  place  is  simply  a 
private  carrier  for  hire.^"^  One  who  contracts  to  cut  timber,  and 
transport  it  to  the  place  where  it  is  to  be  delivered  and  used,  does 
not  incur  the  responsibility  of  a  common  carrier,  but  is  only  liable 
as  a  private  carrier  for  the  want  of  ordinary  prudence,  care  and 
skill. ^*  If  the  carrier  holds  himself  out  to  the  public  generally  as 
ready  and  willing  to  carry  any  goods  that  may  be  shipped,  he  is 
liable  as  a  common  carrier;  ^^  but  if  he  only  proposes  to  carry  the 
goods  of  particular  persons,  he  cannot  be  held  liable  as  a  common 
carrier  to  a  third  person,  with  whom  his  servant  or  agent,  in 
violation  of  his  instructions,  makes  a  contract  for  freight. ^^  A 
purchaser  of  machinery  who  contracts  to  remove  it  from  the  rail- 
road to  his  building,  where  it  is  to  be  erected  by  the  vendor,  does 
not  become  a  common  carrier  and  liable  for  breakage  of  the 
machinery  by  mere  accident,  without  his  negligence."  A  railroad 
acts  as  a  private  carrier,  instead  of  as  a  common  carrier,  in  carry- 
ing goods  for  an  expretss  company  under  a  special  agreement 
with  such  company,^^  And  where  a  railroad  company  undertakes 
to  haul  along  its  line  wagons  belonging  to  private  traders,  it  is  a 
private  carrier  as  to  such  wagons.^^  A  common  carrier  may,  by 
special  contract,  limit  its  common  law  liability,  and  thus  become 
a  private  carrier  or  bailee  for  hire  as  to  the  particular  goods  car- 
ried under  the  contract,  although  it  cannot  by  special  contract 
create  an  exemption  from  liability  for  actual  negligence  of  itself 
or  its  servants.^"  A  common  carrier  may  become  a  private  carrier, 
when,  as  a  matter  of  accommodation  or  special  engagement,  it 
undertakes  to  carry  something  which  it  is  not  its  business  to 
carry."*** 

33.  Beckman   v.    Shouse,    5   Rawle.  37.  AlHs  v.  Voight,  90  Mich.   125, 
(Pa.)   179,  28  Am.  Dec.  653.                       51  N.  W.  190. 

33a.  McBurnie    v.    Stelsly,    29    Ky.  38.  Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co.      v. 

Law  Rep.  1191,  97  S.  W.  42.  Keefer,  146  Ind.  21,  44  N.  E.  796,  38 

34.  Pike  v.  Nash,  1  Keyes  (N.  Y.),  L.  R.  A.  93,  5  Am.  &  Eng.  Cas.  N.  S. 
335,  3  Abh.  Dec.    (N.  Y.)    610.  26. 

35.  McClure    v.    Richardson,    Rice  39.  Watson    v.    North    British    R. 
L.   (S.  C.)   215,  33  Am.  Dec.  105.  Co.,  3  Sc.  SesB.  Gas.    {4th  sess.)    C37, 

36.  Steele  v.  McTyer,  31  Ala.  667,  3  Ry.  &  C.  T.  Cas.  17. 

70  Am.  Dec.  516;  Jenkins  v.  Pickett,  40.  New    York     Cent.     R.     Co.     y. 

9    Yerg.     (Tenn.)     481;    Satterlee    v.      Lockwood,  17  Wall.   (U.  S.)   357. 
«roat.  1  Wend.   (N.  Y.)   272.  40a.  Santa  F«,  P.  &  P.   Ry  Co.  r. 


CARRIERS   GENERALLY. 


13 


§  11.  Liability  of  private  carriers  for  hire. 

The  private  or  special  carrier  for  hire  is  bound  to  exercise  ordi- 
nary prudence,  care,  and  skill  in  carrying  goods  and  delivering 
them  to  the  consignee,  and  is  liable  for  ordinary  negligence  result- 
ing in  loss  or  injury  of  the  goods.  He  is  not  an  insurer  of  the 
safety  of  the  goods  intrusted  to  him  for  transportation.*^  Ordi- 
nary care  has  been  defined  to  be  "  such  care  and  diligence  as  a 
reasonably  prudent  man  would  exercise  in  the  conduct  of  his  own 
business  or  in  the  preservation  of  his  property."  *^  A  carrier  for 
hire,  although  not  a  common  carrier,  is  bound  to  make  good  losses 
arising  from  the  negligence  of  his  own  servants,  although  he  would 
not  be  liable  for  losses  by  thieves,  or  by  any  taking  by  force,  if 
not  himself  guilty  of  negligence,  or  if  the  owner  accompanies  the 
goods  to  take  care  of  them  and  is  liimself  guilty  of  negligence;  for 
it  is  a  rule  of  law  that  a  party  cannot  recover  if  his  own  negligence 
was  as  much  the  cause  of  the  loss  as  that  of  the  defendant.^'^  But, 
in  all  such  cases,  whether  there  has  or  has  not  been  a  due  degree 
of  care  on  the  part  of  the  carrier,  whether  or  not  in  the  exercise 


Grant  Bros.  Const.  Co.,  —  Ariz.  — , 
108  Pac.  467;  Cleveland,  C.  C.  &  St. 
L.  Ry.  Co.-v.  Henry,  170  Ind,  94,  83 
N.  E.  710. 

41.  Allen  v.  Sackrider.  37  N.  Y. 
341;  Fish  v.  Clark,  49  N.  Y.  122,  2 
Lans.  (N.  Y.)  176;  Pike  v.  Nash,  1 
Keyes  (N.  Y.),  335,  3  Abb.  Dec.  (N. 
Y.)  610;  Beck  v.  Evans,  16  East, 
244;  Whalley  v.  Wray,  3  Esp.  74; 
Bowman  v.  Teall,  23  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
306;  Allis  v.  Voight,  90  Mich.  125, 
51  N.  W.  190;  White  v.  Bascom,  28 
Vt.  268;  Nelson  v.  Mackintosh,  1 
Stark.  237,  2  E.  C.  L.  96. 

42.  United  States  v.  Power,  6 
Mont.  271;  Ames  v.  Belden,  17  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  515;  Samms  v.  Stewart,  20 
Ohio,  73,  55  Am.  Dec.  445;  Story 
Bailm.  §  399.  "  It  is  obvious  that  a 
bailee,  wliatever  the  character  of  the 
bailment  may  be,  when  its  purpose 
has  been  fully  satisfied  and  per- 
formed,   is    bound,    upon    request,    to 


redeliver  the  thing  bailed  to  its  law- 
ful owner.  This  is  necessarily  im- 
plied, in  all  cases,  from  the  nature 
of  the  contract  of  bailment.  The  au- 
thorities are  uniform  to  the  effect 
that  such  redelivery  may  be  excused 
in  the  case  of  a  bailment,  mutually 
beneficial  to  the  parties,  by  proof 
that  the  deposit  has  been  lost  or  de- 
stroyed without  negligence,  or  want 
of  such  care  on  the  part  of  a  bailee 
as  prudent  men  under  similar  cir- 
cumstances, commonly  take  of  their 
own  goods.  In  the  case  of  gratu- 
itous bailments,  however,  the  bailee 
is  liable  only  when  chargeable  with 
gross  neglect."  Ouderkirk  v.  Central 
Nat.  Bank,  119  N.  Y.  263.  See  Nel- 
son v.  Mackintosh,  1  Stark.  237,  2 
E.  C.  L.  96.  Compare  Pender  v.  Rob- 
bins,  6  Jones  L.    (N.  C.)    207. 

43.  Brind  v.  Dale,  8  C.  &  P.  207, 
34  E.  C.  L.  355:  Cailiff  v.  Danvera,  1 
Peake  N.  P.  114. 


^^  THE    LAW    OF    CAKKIERS. 

of  ordinary  diligence  tlie  loss  conld  have  been  avoided,  mnst  bo 
decided  from  all  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  case.**  The 
carrier  being  liable  only  for  losses  resulting  from  his  negligence, 
the  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  owner  or  consignee  of  the  goods  lost 
to  show  that  the  loss  resulted  from  the  negligence  of  the  carrier. 
The  question  is  for  the  jury  to  determine  where  the  evidence  is 
contlicting." 
§  12.  Special  contracts  increasing  or  diminishing  liability. 

The  rule  is  now  well  recognized  that  there  is  no  restriction 
upon  the  right  of  any  carrier  to  limit,  by  special  contract,  his 
common  law  liability  for  loss,  except  such  loss  as  is  due  to  the 
ne^liirence  of  himself  or  servants."  Private  or  special  carriers 
for  hire  may  contract  for  a  larger  or  more  restricted  liability  than 
the  law  would  imply  against  them  in  the  absence  of  a  special  con- 
tract. They  may  become  insurers  against  all  possible  hazards  and 
assume  liabilities  coextensive  with  those  of  common  carriers,  or 
they  may  contract  to  answer  for  nothing  but  a  loss  happening 
dirough  their  own  fraud  or  want  of  good  faith.  The  contracting 
parties  stand  on  equal  terms  and  can  make  just  such  a  bargain  as 
ihej  think  will  answer  their  purposes."  They  are  carriers,  com- 
mon or  private,  exactly  according  to  their  contracts,  and  their 
liabilities  will  be  measured  by  the  contract;  and  in  actions  against 
them  for  loss  or  damage,  they  must  be  declared  against  on  the 
contracts  or  for  a  breach  of  duty,  and  not  as  common  or  private 
carriers.**  Such  contracts  are  strictly  construed  and  an  under- 
taking to  carry  "  safely  and  securely  "  will  not  be  presumed  to 
enlarge  the  common  law  liability  to  carry  free  from  ordinary  neg- 
ligence and  to  make  the  carrier  an  insurer  of  the  goods.  To  do 
this  there  must  be  an  express  agreement.*^ 

44.  story  Bailm.  §  39.  349;     Hand    v.    Baynes,    4    Whart. 

45.  Kirtland  v.  Montgomery,  1  (Ta.)  214;  Eobinson  v.  Dunmore,  2 
Swan  (Tenn.),  453;  see  Burden  of  Bos.  &  P.  417;  Hadley  v.  Clark,  8 
Proof;   Carriers  of  goods.     Chap.  14.  T.  R.  259;  Breakneck  Canal  Nav.  Co. 

46.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  T^ck-  v.  Pritehard,  6  T.  R.  750;  Paradine 
wood,    17    Wall.     (U.    S.)     357;    and  v.  Jane,  Alleyn.  27. 

other  cases  cited  under  Limitation  of  48.  Kimball    v.    Rutland    Railroad, 

Liability,  Carriers  of  Goods,  chap.  10.       26  Vt.  247;   Robinson  v.  Dunmore,  2 

47.  Wells  V.  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  2  N.       Bos.  &  P.  416. 

Y.  204;    Alexander  v.   Green,   3   ITill  49.  Ames  v.  Belden,   17  Barb.    (N. 

(N.  Y.)    9;   Fish  ▼.  Chapman,  2  Ga.      Y.)    516;    Foster   v.   Essex   Bank,    17 


CARRIERS   GENERALLY.  15 

§  13.  Lien  of  the  private  carrier. 

The  rule  seems  to  be  that  the  private  carrier  has  no  common 
law  lien  upon  tlie  goods  carried  by  him  for  his  charges  for  trans- 
portation, and  has  a  lien  only  when  he  specially  reserves  it  by 
agreement,  or  it  has  been  conferred  by  statute.^"  Most  textwriters, 
reasoning  from  analogy,  find  no  satisfactory  reason  why  the  pri- 
vate carrier  should  not  have  the  same  lien  as  tlie  warehouseman 
find  wharfinger,  who  have  rendered  service  in  respect  to  the  goods 
for  the  owner's  benefit,  or  the  tradesman  or  artisan,  who,  by  his 
labor  and  skill  and  materials  furnished,  has  added  to  the  value 
of  the  goods  in  his  charge.^^  This  view  has  been  criticised  as 
questionable  on  the  grounds  that  the  artisan  is  given  such  a  lien 
on  the  theory  that  he  has  bettered  the  property;  the  innkeeper 
and  common  carrier  are  recognized  as  entitled  to  it  because  they 
are  in  a  measure  public  servants,  and  bound  to  perform  services 
and  furnish  entertainment  for  all  who  apply;  the  warehouseman 
deals  largely  with  the  public,  sei'ving  all  who  apply,  although  not 
bound  to  do  so,  furnishing  facilities  at  great  expense  to  serve  the 
public  whose  patronage  he  seeks;  while  none  of  these  reasons 
apply  in  the  case  of  the  private  carrier."^  It  was  said  by  Lord 
Kenyon,  in  speaking  of  the  liens  of  warehousemen  and  whar- 
fingers, that  liens  were  either  by  common  law,  usage  or  agree- 
ment; that  a  lien  from  usage  was  a  matter  of  evidence;  that  the 
usage  in  the  case  under  discussion  had  been  proved  so  often  it 
should  be  considered  a  settled  point;  and  that  liens  by  common 
law  arose  where  a  party  was  obliged  to  receive  the  goods.^^  The 
general  lien  of  the  wharfinger  upon  the  goods  of  his  customer  en- 
trusted to  him  and  in  his  possession,  for  his  balance  in  repect  of 
freight  and   wharfage,  was  admitted;  but  the  court  refused  to 

Mass.  501,  9  Am.  Dec.  168;  Oakley  is  not  enjoyed  by  a  private  carrier; 
V.  Portsmouth,  etc.,  Steam  Packet  Jones,  Liens,  §  276;  Fuller  v.  Brad- 
Co.,  11  Exch.  618;  Ross  v.  Hill,  3  ley,  25  Pa.  St.  120;  Picquet  v.  Mc- 
C.  B.  877,  3  Dowl.  &  L.  788;  United  Kay,  2  Blackf.  (Ind.)  465. 
States  V.  Power,  6  Mont.  271;  Scaife  61.  Angell,  Carriers  (5th  ed.),  § 
V.  Farrant,  L.  R.  10  Exch.  358,  66;      Hutchinson,     Carriers,     §     46; 

60.  Riddle,    Dean    &    Co.    v.    New  Jones,  Liens,  §  276. 

York,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    1    Int.    Cora.    R.  62.  Van   Zile,   Bailments   and   Car- 

594,  604,  the  compensation  of  a  com-  riers,  §  404. 

mon  carrier  is  assured  to  him  by  a  53.  Ilolderness   v.    Collinson,    1   M. 

lien   upon   the  goods — a   right  which  k  R.  55,  7  B.  &  C.  712. 


10 


THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 


flllow  a  lion  claimed  for  laboragc  (comprising  landing,  weigliing 
and  delivering),  and  warehouse  rent,  because  the  custom  proved 
was  not  sutHciently  certain  and  uniform  to  lay  a  foundation,  upon 
which  an  express  or  implied  contract  could  be  found,  to  act  upon 
it."  A  warehouseman  has  a  specific  lien,  unless  it  is  made  general 
by  an  express  or  implied  contract,  upon  goods  entrusted  to  him 
within  his  line  of  business,  for  his  reasonable  charges.  His  lien 
arose  out  of  the  usage  of  business,  repeatedly  proved  and  recog- 
nized until  it  has  become  an  established  right.^*  An  artisan  or 
other  bailee  for  hire  of  labor  and  services  has  an  interest  or  special 
property  in  the  chattels  upon  which  his  labor  or  services  are  per- 
formed, for  which  he  has  a  specific  lien  until  he  is  paid  for  hia 
labor,  or  parts  with  the  possession  pursuant  to  the  terms  of  his 
airreement.^®  The  lien  of  the  artisan,  therefore,  seems  to  be 
founded  upon  his  special  property  in  the  chattel  and  his  having 
added  something  to  its  value ;  the  lien  of  the  common  carrier  and 
innkeeper  is  based  upon  the  fact  that  they  are  bound  to  receive 
the  goods  and  perform  the  services  required ;  the  lien  of  the  ware- 


54.  Holdernoss  v.  CoHinson,  supra; 
Navlor  V.  Mangles,  1  Esp.  109; 
Spears  v.  Hartley,  3  Esp.  81;  Rush- 
ford  V.  Hadfield,  6  East,  519;  Dresser 
V.  Bosanquet,  4  B.  &  S.  460,  116  E. 
C.  L.  R. 

55.  Holdernoss  v.  Collinson,  supra; 
Naylor  v.  I\Iangle3,  supra;  Spears  v. 
Hartley,  supra.  As  against  a  con- 
signee, knowing  the  regulation  and 
usage  of  a  railroad  company  to  re- 
quire certain  kinds  of  goods  to  be  un- 
loaded within  twenty-four  hours  after 
notice  to  him  of  their  arrival,  the 
company  as  warehousemen  have  a 
lien  on  the  goods  for  storage  after  the 
twenty-four  hours  have  elapsed.  Mil- 
ler V.  Mansfield,  112  Mass.  260. 

A  warehouseman  has  a  specific, 
not  a  general  lien;  but  he  may  de- 
liver a  part,  and  retain  the  residue 
for  the  price  chargeable  on  all  the 
gr.ods  received  by  him  under  the  same 
bailment,   provided   the   ownership   of 


the  whole  is  in  the  same  person. 
Steinman  v.  Wilkins,  7  Watts  &  S. 
(Pa.)  466.  Where  a  quantity  of 
merchandise  is  stored  in  a  ware- 
house, and  portions  of  it  are  from 
time  to  time  delivered  out  without 
receiving  the  storage  thereon,  the 
warehouseman  has  a  lien  upon  the 
residue  for  the  storage  of  the  whole ; 
it  being  one  transaction,  the  lien 
covers  the  whole  of  the  goods  deposi- 
ted, and  may  rest  upon  each  part  of 
the  entire  claim.  Morgan  v.  Cong- 
don,  4  N.  Y.  552;  Schmidt  v.  Blood, 
9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  268;  McFarland  v. 
Wheeler,  26  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  467; 
Lowe  V.  Martin  18  111.  286;  Sears  v. 
Wills,  4  Allen  (Mass.),  212;  Blake 
V,  Nicholson,  3  M.  &  S.  168. 

56.  Gregory  v.  Stryker,  2  Denio 
(N.  Y.),  628;  Moore  v.  Hitchcock,  4 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  292;  Wheeler  v.  Mc- 
Farland, 10  Wend.   (N.  Y.)    318,  324. 


CARRIERS   GENERALLY.  I7 

houseman  and  wharfinger  is  founded  upon  long  established  and 
well  recognized  usage;  none  of  which  reasons  for  a  lien  exist  in 
the  case  of  the  private  carrier.  But  it  has  been  held  that  a  car- 
rier, bj  boat,  of  freight  to  a  specified  place  and  back,  taking  in 
and  putting  out  freight  at  different  places,  as  the  shipper  might 
direct,  for  a  stipulated  sum  per  day,  has  a  lien  on  the  freight 
remaining  on  board  on  the  return  of  the  boat,  for  the  whole  unpaid 
freight.^"  And,  in  a  recent  case,  that  the  owner  of  a  steamboat 
engaged  in  the  business  of  towing  is  not  a  common  carrier,  entitled 
as  such  to  a  specific  lien  upon  the  goods  carried,  for  his  charges 
ill  transporting  them,  especially  where  he  tows  only  for  a  single 
party,  but  that  he  has  a  common  law  bailee's  lien  thereon.^' 

57.  Fuller   v.   Bradley,   25   Pa.  St  58.  Knapp,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McCaffrey, 

120.  178  111.  107,  52  N.  E.  898,  affg.  74 

HL  App.  80. 


CHAPTER    II. 
Common  Cauuikrs. 

Skction     1.  What  constitutes  a  common  carrier. 

2.  Tl)e  liability  of  the  common  carrier. 

3.  Liability  in  the  carrying  of  live  stock. 

4.  Liability    where    tlie    loss    or    injury    results    from    the    inherent 

nature  of  the  goods. 

5.  Where  the  loss  or  injury  is  the  result  of  the  acts  of  the  shipper. 

6.  Wiiere  the  loss  or  injury  is  the  result  of  delay  in  the  transmission 

of  the  goods. 

7.  Where  the  loss  or  Injury  is  caused  by  the  exercise  of  public  au- 

thority. 

8.  Liability  of  carriers  of  passengers. 

9.  Express  companies. 

10.  Railroad  companies. 

11.  Receivers  and  assignees  of  railroad  company  o]terating  the  road. 

12.  Trustees  of  mortgage  bonds  of  railroad  cumpauy. 

13.  Street  railroad  companies. 

14.  One  railroad  transporting  the  cars  of  another — terminal  railroads. 

15.  Transportation  or  dispatch  companies. 

16.  Express  freight  lines. 

17.  Owners  of  canal  boats. 

18.  Owners  of  tow  beats  towing  water  craft  on  the  Mississippi. 

19.  Owners  of  boats  employed  in  towing  other  boats  or  vessels. 

20.  Ferrymen. 

21.  Hackmen. 

22.  Proprietors  of  omnibuses. 

23.  Proprietors  of  stage  coaches. 

24.  Palace  and  sleeping  car  companies. 

25.  Pipe  line  for  carrying  oil. 

26.  Wagoners. 

27.  Carriers  by  river  craft. 

2S.  Truckmen,  freijjhtmcn,  draymen,  cartmen.  and  porters. 
29.  Owners  and  masters  of  ships  and  steamboats  or  vessels. 
SO.  Lightermen  and  hoymen. 

31.  Owners  of  toll  bridge. 

32.  Canal  companies. 

33.  Forwarding  merchants. 

34.  Warehousemen  and  wharfingers. 

35.  Postmasters,  mail  contractors,  and  mail  cnrviorg. 

36.  Tx)g-carrying,  or  log-driving,  or   boom  conii^anies. 

37.  Telegraph  companies. 

18 


COMMON    CAEHlERiJ. 


19 


Section  3S.  Telephone  companies. 

39.  Railroad  company  transporting  a  circus,  menagerie,  or  show. 

40.  Railroad  companj-  in  South  Laroiina  only  over  its  own  line. 

41.  Railroad  company  carrying  a  dog  for  accommodation  of  passenger. 

42.  Carrier  luider  a  contract  exempting  "  river  risks." 

43.  Owners  of  passenger  elevators. 

44.  Car-switching  companies. 

45.  Telegraph  messenger  companies. 

46.  Carriers  of  money  and  bank  bills. 

47.  An  irrigation  company. 

48.  Transfer  companies. 

49.  Owners  of  grain  elevators. 

50.  Storage  and  transfer  companies — public  moving  van  companies. 

§  1.  What  constitutes  a  common  carrier. 

A  common  or  public  carrier  is  one  who,  by  virtue  of  his  busi- 
ness or  calling,  undertakes,  for  compensation,  to  transport  personal 
property  from  one  place  to  another,  either  by  land  or  water,  and 
deliver  the  same,  for  all  such  as  may  choose  to  employ  him;  and 
every  one,  who  undertakes  to  carry  and  deliver,  for  compensation, 
the  goods  of  all  persons  indifferently,  is,  as  to  liability,  to  be 
deemed  a  common  carrier.^     One  holding  out  to  the  public  as 


1.  Jackson  Arcliitectural  Iron 
Works  V.  Hurlbut,  158  N.  Y.  34,  38, 
52  N.  E.  665,  70  Am.  St.  Rep.  432; 
afTg.  15  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  93.  71 
St.  Rop.  (N.  Y.)  830,  36  X.  Y.  Supp. 
808;  Ixjugh  V.  Outcrbridge,  143  N. 
Y.  271,  145  N.  Y.  601,  aflfg.  68  Hun 
(N.  Y.),  486;  Allen  v.  Sackrider,  37 
N,  Y.  341;  Bank  of  Orange  v.  Brown, 
3  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  158,  161,  9  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  85;  Alexander  v.  Green,  7 
Hill  (N.  Y.),  544;  Blanchard  v. 
Isaacs,  3  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  388; 
O'Rourke  v.  Bates,  73  Misc.  Rep.  414, 
133  K.  Y.  Supp.  392;  Schouler  B^ilm. 
&,  Car.  (2d  ed.)  351;  Story  Bail.  §§ 
495,  496;  2  Kent's  Com.  (4th  ed.) 
pp.  598,  599;  2  Pars.  Cont.  165.  175; 
Angell  Carr.  870;  1  Smith's  Lead. 
Cas.  (8th  Am.  ed.)  392;  Smith's 
Mercantile    Law    (Pomnroy's    ed.),    5 


A  common  carrier  was  defined  in 
Gisburn  v.  Hurst,  1  Salk.  249,  to  be 
"  any  man  undertaking,  for  hire,  to 
carry  the  goods  of  all  persons  indif- 
ferenthj;"  and  in  Dwight  v.  Brew- 
ster, 1  Pick.  (Mass.)  50,  11  Am.  Dec. 
133,  to  be  "  one  who  undertakes,  for 
hire,  to  transport  the  goods  of  such 
as  choose  to  employ  him  from  place 
to  place."  Allen  v.  Sackrider,  37  N. 
Y.  341. 

The  former  definition  hns  been  ap- 
proved in  Gordon  v.  Hutchinson,  1 
W.  &  S.  (Pa.)  285,  37  Am.  Dec.  464; 
Mershon  v.  Hobensack,  22  N.  J.  L. 
377;  Verner  v.  Sweitzer,  32  Pa.  St. 
208;  Bank  of  Orange  v.  Brown, 
supra,  wherein  CJhief  Justice  Savage 
said:  "Every  person  who  undertakes 
to  carry  for  a  compensation,  the 
goods  of  all  persons  indifferently,  is 
as  to  the  liability  imposed,  to  be  con- 


20 


THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 


ready  to  undertake  for  hire  tho  transportation  of  goods,  and  so 
inviting  custom  of  tho  public,  is  a  common  carrier/"  A  common 
carrier  is  one  who  openly  professes  to  carry  for  hire  the  goods  of 
all  who  ciioose  to  employ  him,  and  whoso  duty  it  is  to  carry  for 
all  who  comply  with  tho  terms  as  to  freight,  etc. ;  while  a  private 
carrier  is  one  who,  without  being  engaged  in  the  business  gen- 
erally, uiulortakes  to  carry  goods  for  hire  in  a  particular  case.^"* 
The  employment  of  a  common  carrier  is  a  public  one  and  he  as- 
sumes a  public  duty,  and  is  bound  to  receive  and  carry  the  goods 


sidered  a  common  carrier.  The  dis- 
tinction between  a  common  carrier 
and  a  private  or  special  carrier  is, 
that  the  former  holds  himself  out  in 
common,  that  is  to  all  persons  who 
employ  him,  as  ready  to  carry  for 
hire;  while  the  latter  agrees  in  some 
special  case  with  some  private  indi- 
vidual to  carry  for  hire."  Story 
Cont.  §  752a. 

Common  carriers  undertake  gener- 
ally, and  not  as  a  casual  occupation, 
and  for  all  people  indifferently,  to 
convey  goods  and  deliver  them  at  a 
place  appointed  for  hire  as  a  busi- 
ness, and  with  or  without  a  special 
agreement  as  to  price.  2  Kent's  Com. 
598. 

The  definition  given  in  the  text  is 
substantially  that  approved  by  the 
following  additional  cases:  The  Pro- 
peller Niagara  v.  Cordes,  21  How. 
(U.  S.)  22;  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Lampley,  76  Ala.  357,  52  Am.  Rep. 
334,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R  Cas.  720; 
Babcock  v.  Herbert,  3  Ala.  392,  37 
Am.  Dec.  695;  Schloss  v.  Wood,  11 
Cole.  287;  Bennett  v.  Filyaw,  1  Fla. 
453;  Robertson  v.  Kennedy,  2  Dana 
(Ky.),  430,  26  Am.  Dec.  466;  Elkins 
T.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  N.  H.  275; 
Sheldon  v.  Robinson,  7  N.  H.  157, 
163,  26  Am.  Dec.  726;  Fuller  v.  Brad- 
ley, 25  Pa.  St.  120;  Littlejohn  v. 
Jones,  2  McMul.   (S.  C.)   365,  39  Am. 


Dec.  132;  Chevallier  v.  Straham,  2 
Tex.  115,  118,  47  Am.  Dec.  639;  Doty 
V.  Strong,  1  Pin.  (Wis.)  324,  Burn. 
(Wis.)   158,  40  Am.  Dec.  773. 

la.  Lloyd  v.  Haugh  &  Keenan 
Storage  &  Transfer  Co.,  223  Pa.  148, 
73  Atl.   516. 

A  common  carrier  is  one  whose 
business  it  ia  to  carry  chattels  for 
all  persons  who  may  choose  to  em- 
ploy and  remunerate  him;  and  this 
applies  to  carriers  by  land  and  water, 
without  regard  to  distance  or  mo- 
tive power.  Nicolette  Lumber  Co.  v. 
People's  Coal  Co.,  26  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
575  (1904),  rev'd  213  Pa.  379,  62 
Atl.  1060,  3  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.)  327, 
110  St.  Rep.  550. 

lb.  The  Cape  Charles,  198  Fed. 
346. 

A  common  carrier  is  one  who  un- 
dertakes for  compensation  to  trans- 
port property  from  one  place  to  an- 
other. United  States  v.  Ramsey,  197 
Fed.  144. 

A  company  engaged  in  the  livery 
business  does  not  hold  itself  out  to 
serve  any  and  all  persons,  but  oper- 
ates only  under  a  special  contract, 
and  deals  with  such  persons  only  as 
it  chooses,  and  is  in  no  sense  a  com- 
mon carrier.  Trout  v.  Walkins  Liv- 
ery &  Undertaking  Co.,  —  Mo.  App. 
— ,  130  S.  W.  136. 


(X)MMON    CARRIERS. 


21 


of  any  one  wlio  offers,  provided  the  goods  be  of  the  kind  he  pro- 
fesses to  carry,  and  the  person  so  offering  agrees  to  have  them 
carried  upon  the  lawful   terms  prescribed  by  the  carrier."     To 


2.  Allen  v,  Sackrider,  37  N.  Y. 
341;  Sanford  v.  American  Dist.  Tel. 
Co.,  13  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  88,  34  N. 
Y.  Su[p.  144;  Hutchinson  Carr.  §  47: 
Bishop  Noncont.  Law,  §§  1057,  1151, 
1185;  Carton  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
1  B.  &  S.  112,  101  E.  C.  L.  112. 

A  common  carrier  is  one  who  plys 
between  certain  termini  and  openly 
profc'sses  to  carry  for  hire  tlie  goods 
of  all  such  persons  as  may  choose  to 
employ  him.  He  may  profess  to  carry 
all  descriptions  of  goods  or  particu- 
lar descriptions  only.  Redman's  Law 
of  Railway  Carriers   (2d  ed.),  1. 

To  bring  a  person  within  the  de- 
scription of  a  common  carrier,  he 
must  exercise  it  as  a  public  employ- 
ment, he  must  undertake  to  carry 
•roods  for  persons  generally,  and  he 
iiuist  hold  himself  out  as  ready  to 
engage  in  the  transportation  of  goods 
fur  hire,  as  a  business,  not  as  a  ca-ual 
occupation  pro  hac  vice.  Story  Bail. 
§   495. 

Tile  common  carrier  is  one  who,  oy 
the  ancient  law,  held  as  it  were  a 
public  office  and  was  bound  to  the 
I)iiblic,  and  who,  to  become  liable  as 
a  common  carrier,  must  exercise  the 
business  of  carrying  as  a  public  em- 
ployment, and  must  undertake  to 
carry  goods  for  all  persons  indiscrim- 
inately and  hold  himself  out  as  ready 
to  engage  in  the  transportation  of 
goods  for  hire  as  a  business,  and  not 
as  a  casual  occupation.     Chitty  Carr. 

A  common  carrier  has  also  been  de- 
fined to  be  "  one  who  offers  to  carry 
poods  for  any  person  between  certain 
termini   or   on   a   certain   route,   and 


who  is  bound  to  carry  for  all  who 
tender  him  goods  and  the  price  of 
carriage."  The  Neaffie,  1  Abb.  (U. 
S.)  467.  See  also,  Parsons  on  Ship- 
ping, Vol.  1,  p.  245;  Nugent  V. 
Smith,  1  C.  P.  Div.  427. 

A  common  carrier  is  one  who  un- 
dertakes and  exercises  as  a  public  em- 
ployment the  transportation  or  car- 
riage of  goods,  for  persons  generally, 
from  place  to  place,  whether  by  land 
or  water,  and  to  deliver  them  at  the 
place  appointed,  for  hire  or  reward 
and  with  or  without  a  special  agree- 
ment as  to  price.  McHenry  v.  Phila- 
delphia, etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Harr,  (Del.) 
448;  Carpenter  v.  Baltimore  &  0.  R. 
Co.,  6  Penn.    (Del.)    15,   64  Atl.  252. 

Statutory  definitions. — Every  rail- 
road corporation  doing  business  in 
this  State  shall  be  a  common  car- 
rier. Any  one  or  two  or  more  cor- 
porations owning  or  operating  con- 
necting roads,  within  this  State,  or 
partly  within  and  partly  without  the 
State,  shall  be  liable  as  a  common 
carrier,  for  the  transportation  of  pas- 
sengers or  delivery  of  freigiit  re- 
ceived by  it  to  be  transported  by  it 
to  any  place  on  the  line  of  a  connect- 
ing road;  and  if  it  shall  become  lia- 
ble to  pay  any  sum  by  reason  of  neg- 
lect or  misconduct  of  any  other  cor- 
poration, it  may  collect  the  same  of 
the  corporation  h-r  reason  of  whose 
neglect  or  misconduct  it  became  lia- 
ble. The  Railroad  Law  of  Niw  York, 
§  48. 

Every  one  who  offers  to  the  public 
to  carry  persons,  property,  or  mes- 
sagea,  except  only  telegraph  messages, 
ia  a  common  carrier  of  whatever  he 


THE    LAW    OF    CAKKIHKS. 


constitute  a  common  carrier,  it  is  not  essential  tliat  the  person  or 
.corpuration  undertaking  such  service  own  the  means  of  transpor- 
tation, it  being  sutlicient  tliat  a  contract  is  made  by  which  the 
carrier  agrees  to  transport  and  deliver  the  goods.^  According  to 
all  the  autliorities,  the  essential  cliaracteristics  of  the  common 
carrier  are  tliat  he  holds  himself  out  as  such  to  the  world;  that  he 
undertakes  generally,  and  for  all  persons  indillorently,  to  carry 
goods  and  deliver  them,  for  hire;  and  that  his  public  profession 
of  his  employment  be  such  that,  if  he  refuse,  without  some  just 
ground,  to  carry  goods  for  any  one,  ii;  .he  course  of  his  employ- 
ment and  for  a  reasonable  and  customary  price,  he  will  be  liable 
to  an  action.^  The  nature  and  extent  of  the  employment  and  busi- 
ness in  which  he  holds  himself  out  to  the  public  either  expressly 


thus  offers  to  carry.  Cal.  Civ.  Code, 
1SS6,   §   2168. 

Any  person  undertaking  to  trans- 
port goods  to  another  place  for  a 
compensation  is  a  carrier.  One  who 
pursues  the  business  constantly  or 
continuously  for  any  period  of  time, 
or  any  distance  of  transportation,  is 
a  common  carrier.  2  Ga.  Code,  1895, 
§§   2263,  2264. 

•'  Any  otlier  carrier  engaged  in  the 
transportation  of  messages  or  trans- 
portation of  passengers  or  freight  for 
hire,"  as  used  in  Nebraska  Laws 
1907,  p.  320,  c.  90,  §  4,  defining  a 
common  carrier  to  be  a  corporation, 
etc.,  owning,  managing,  or  control- 
ling a  railroad,  etc.,  or  any  express 
company,  car  company,  sleeping  car 
company,  and  freight  line  company, 
telegraph  and  telephone  companies, 
and  any  other  carrier  engaged  in  the 
transmission  of  messages  or  trans- 
portation of  passengers  or  freight 
for  hire,  means  only  such  companies 
as  by  their  public  profession  hold 
themselves  out  as  engaged  in  trans- 
mitting messages  or  transporting 
passengers  or  freight  for  hire,  and  as 
•willing  to  perform  such   services  for 


any  person  having  occasion  to  em- 
ploy them.  State  v.  Union  Stock- 
yards Co.  of  Omaha,  115  N.  W.  627 
(Neb.   1908). 

2a.  Blakiston  v.  Davies,  Turner  & 
Co.,  42  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  390;  J.  H. 
Cownie  Glove  Co.  v.  Merchants'  Dis- 
patch Transp.  Co.,  130  Iowa  327,  106 
N.  W.  749,  114  Am.  St.  Kep.  419,  4 
L.  R.  A.   (iSI.  S.)    1060. 

3.  Fish  V.  Clark,  2  Lans.  (N.  Y.) 
176,  178,  afld.  49  N.  Y.  122;  Allen 
v.  Sackrider,  supra;  Santa  Fe  P.  & 
P.  Co.  V.  Grant  Bros.  Const.  Co.,  108 
Pac.  (Ariz.)  467;  3  Kent's  Com.  597; 
Story  Bail.  §  495;  2  Parsons  Cont. 
166,  note;  Angell  Com.  Carr.  §  46. 

The  liability  to  an  action  for  a  re- 
fusal to  carry  is  perhaps  the  safest 
criterion  of  the  character  of  the  car- 
rier. Fish  V.  Chaf)man,  2  Ki  Uy 
(Ga.),  352;  46  Am.  Dec.  393.  Com- 
pare Gordon  v.  Hutcliinson,  1  \V.  & 
S.  (Pa.)  285,  37  Am.  Dec.  464;  Stein- 
man  V.  Wilkins,  7  W.  &  S.  (Pa.)  ''.66, 
24  Am.  Dec.  254.  See,  also,  Pied- 
mont Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Columbia, 
etc.,  R.,  19  S.  C.  352,  16  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  R.  Cas.  194. 


COMMON    CARRIERS. 


23 


or  impliedly,  as  engaged,  furnish  the  true  limits  of  the  rights, 
obligations,  duties  and  liabilities  of  the  common  carrier/  The 
chief  distinction  between  common  carriers  and  all  others  lies  in 
the  fact  that,  in  respect  to  the  extent  of  their  responsibility  and 
the  liability  they  assume  in  their  undertaking,  they  effectually 
insure  the  safe  transportation  and  delivery  of  the  goods  they  carry, 
and  are  made  liable,  by  reason  of  the  public  nature  of  their  em- 
ployment and  the  responsibility  imposed  upon  them  by  the  law, 
upon  the  grounds  of  public  policy,  for  loss  or  injury  from  what- 
ever cause  arising,  excepting  only  acts  of  God  and  the  public 
enemy,  and  in  the  further  fact  that,  as  public  or  common  carriers 
for  hire,  they  are  obliged  by  law  to  carry  for  all  persons  indiffer- 
ently.^   A  common  carrier  may  be  a  carrier  of  either  passengers 


4.  Citizens'  Bank  v.  The  Kantuckct 
Steamboat  Co.,  2  Story  (U.  S.).  16, 
35. 

Holding  out  to  the  world  as  a  test. 
For  authorities,  where  this  test  has 
been  applied,  see  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.  Nichols,  9  Kan.  253,  12  Am.  Rep. 
494;  Kirby  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  2 
Mo.  App.  369;  United  States  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Bachman,  28  Ohio  St.  144,  14 
Am.  Ry.  Rep.  82;  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  V.  Harris,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Cas. 
§  1257;  !McCiures  v.  Hammond,  1  Bay 
(S.  C),  99,  1  Am.  Dec.  598;  Moss 
V.  Bettis,  4  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  661,  13 
Am.  Rep.  1;  Citizens'  Bank  v.  The 
Nantucket  Steamboat  Co.,  supra; 
Fish  V.  Clark,  supra;  Ingate  v.  Chris- 
tie, 3  C.  &  K.  61;  Nugent  v.  Smith, 
1  C.  P.  Div,  27,  wherein  the  court 
said :  "  The  test  is  not  whether  he  is 
carrying  on  a  public  employment,  or 
wliether  he  carries  to  a  fixed  place; 
but  whether  he  holds  out,  either  ex- 
pressly or  by  a  course  of  conduct, 
that  he  will  carry  for  hire,  so  long 
as  he  has  room,  the  goods  of  all  per- 
sons indifTerently  who  send  him  goids 
to  be  carried."  Rchloss  v.  Wood,  11 
Colo.  291,  wherein  the  court  said:  "A 
•person  can  hold  himself  out  as  a  com- 


mon carrier  by  engaging  in  the  busi- 
ness generally,  or  by  announcing  or 
proclaiming  it  by  cards,  advertise- 
ments, or  by  any  other  means  that 
would  let  the  public  know  that  he  in- 
tended to  be  a  common  or  general 
carrier  for  the  public."  Roussel  v. 
Aumais,  Rap.  Jud.  Que.  18,  C.  S.  474. 
5.  Price  v.  Hartshorn,  44  N.  Y.  94, 
afTg.  44  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  455;  South  & 
North  Alabama  R.  v.  Wood,  66  Ala, 
167,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  419; 
Varble  v.  Bigley,  77  Ky.  (14  Bush.) 
698,  29  Am.  Rep.  435,  the  two  dis- 
tinguishing characteristics  of  a  com- 
mon carrier  are  in  respect  to  his 
duty,  he  being  obliged  to  transport 
goods  offered,  and  in  respect  to  bis 
risk,  he  being  liable  as  an  insurer; 
Gales  V.  Hailman,  11  Pa.  St.  515; 
Hart  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  59;  Texas  Exp.  Co. 
V.  Scott,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas. 
Ill;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burke, 
55  Texas,  323,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R. 
Cas.  59;  Davis  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  26  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  315; 
Tlall  V.  Railroad  Co.,  13  Wall.  (U. 
S.)  367;  Hart  v.  Western,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  13  Mete.  (Mass.)  99;  Van  Sant- 
voored   v.   St.  John,   6  Hill    (N.   Y.), 


2i 


TUE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 


or  freight,  or  hotli ;  but  tlic  natnro  of  tho  responsibility  incurred 
is  very  ditYcrent  in  the  two  oases;  in  one,  his  responsibility  being 
that  of  a  carrier  of  passengers,  and  negligence  being  the  essential 
clement  of  the  ca?c,  as  will  be  hereafter  shown,  and  in  the  other, 
tliat  of  a  common  carrier  of  goods.*  Any  person  or  corporation 
offering  its  services  to  all  persons  similarly  situated  and  perform- 
ing as  its  public  vocation  the  services  of  transporting  passengers, 
freight,  or  intelligence  is  a  common  carrier  in  the  particular 
spheres  of  such  employment.''*  To  constitute  one  a  common  car- 
rier it  is  not  necessary  that  his  exclusive  business  shall  be  carry- 
ing.'' It  has  been  held  that  in  order  to  constitute  one  a  common 
carrier  the  business  of  carrying  must  be  habitual  and  not  casual ;  • 
and,  to  the  contrary,  that  one  who  carries  goods  for  hire  contracts 
the  responsibility  of  a  common  carrier,  whether  transportation  be 
his  principal  and  direct  business,  or  an  occasional  and  incidental 


157;  Lane  v.  Cotton,  1  Salk.  143; 
Nugent  V.  Smith,  L.  R.  1  C.  P.  Div. 
19,  423. 

6.  Thompson  Houston  Electric  Co. 
V.  Simon,  20  Or.  60,  25  Pac.  147,  10 
L.  R.  A.  251,  43  Alb.  L.  J.  48; 
Boyce  v.  Anderson,  2  Peters  (U.  S.), 
150;  Stokes  v.  Saltonstall,  13  Peters 
(U.  S.),  181;  Hollister  v.  Nowlen,  19 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  234;  Camden,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Burke,  13  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  611; 
Aston  V.  Heaven,  2  Esp.  533;  Crofts 
V.  Waterhouse,  3  Bing.  319,  11  Moore, 
133;  Readhead  v.  Ry.  Co.,  L.  R.  2  Q. 
B.  412,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B.  379;  Pittsburgh, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hinds,  53  Pa.  St.  512; 
Cleveland,  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Henry,  170  Ind.  94,  83  N.  E.  710, 
revg.  —  Ind.  — ,  80  N.  E.  C36.  Seo 
also.  Carriers  of  Passengers. 

Common  carriers  of  passengers  are 
such  as  undertake  to  carry  all  per- 
sons who  may  apply  for  passage,  so 
long  as  there  is  room  and  there  is  no 
legal  excu=e  for  refusing.  Gilling- 
ham  V.  01. io  River  R.  Co.,  35  W.  Va. 
CSS,  29  Am.  St.  Rep.  827;  Bouv.  Law 


Diet.  tit.  "  Common  Carriers  of  Pas- 
sengers." The  only  distinction  be- 
tween a  common  or  public  carrier  of 
passengers  and  a  private  or  special 
carrier  of  passengers  is  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  former  to  receive  all  per- 
sons who  apply.    Angell  Carr.  §  524. 

6a.  State  v.  Union  Stockyards  Co. 
of  Omaha,  81  Neb.  67,  115  N.  W.  627. 

A  corporation  is  none  the  less  a 
general  carrier,  as  defined  by  Minne- 
sota Gen,  St.  1894,  §  379,  because  its 
articles  do  not  in  terms  prescribe 
that  one  of  its  powers  is  to  carry 
freight.  In  re  Minneapolis  &  St.  P. 
Suburban  Ry.  Co.,  101  Minn.  132, 
112  N.  W.  13   (1907). 

7.  Jackson  A.  Iron  Works  v. 
Hurlbut,  158  N.  Y.  34,  52  N.  E.  665;' 
The  Propeller  Niagara  v.  Cordes,  21 
How.  (U.  S.)  7;  Dwight  v.  Brewster, 
J   Pick.   (Mass.)    50. 

8.  Fish  V.  Chapman,  2  Ga.  349,  46 
Am.  Dec.  393;  Samms  v.  Stewart,  20 
Ohio,  69,  55  Am.  Dec.  445;  Nugent 
V.  Smith,  1  C.  P.  Div.  27;  Story  BaiU 
§  495;   2  Kent's  Com.  597. 


CJOMMON    CARRIERS.  25 

employment.'  The  rule  has  heen  laid  down  that  one  who  under- 
takes, for  a  reward,  to  carry  produce  or  goods  of  any  sort  from 
one  place  to  another  becomes  thereby  a  common  carrier  ;^°  and 
that  the  distinctive  characteristic  of  a  common  carrier  is  that  ho 
transports  goods  for  hire  for  the  public  generally,  and  it  is  imma- 
terial whether  this  is  his  usual  or  occasional  occupation,  his  prin- 
cipal or  subordinate  pursuit." 

It  has  been  said  that  the  true  test  of  the  character  of  a  party  is 
his  legal  duty  and  obligation  with  reference  to  transportation.  If 
it  is  his  legal  duty  to  carry  for  all  alike  who  comply  with  his  tenna 
as  to  freight,  etc.,  then  he  is  a  common  carrier,  and  is  subject  to 
all  those  stringent  rules  which  for  wise  ends  have  long  since  been 
adopted  and  uniformly  enforced,  both  in  England  and  in  all  the 
States,  upon  common  carriers.  If,  on  the  contrary,  he  may  carry 
or  not,  as  he  deems  best,  he  is  but  a  private  individual,  and  is 
invested,  like  all  other  private  persons,  with  the  right  to  make  his 
own  contracts,  and  when  made  to  stand  upon  them,  and  he  is  not 
bound  by  the  stringent  rules  applicable  to  common  carriers.^  On 
the  other  hand,  it  has  been  maintained  that  the  duty  to  carry  is 
one  of  the  results  of  the  relation  of  common  carrier  and  in  no  way 
one  of  its  causes  or  distinguishing  features.  If  a  carrier  is  sued 
for  a  refusal  to  carry,  the  first  question  presented,  and  the  ontj 
upon  which  the  case  must  depend,  is  whether  or  not  it  is  a  common 
carrier.  The  status  of  the  defendant  as  a  common  carrier  must 
be  first  established  before  the  duty  to  carry  can  be  known  to  exist.^* 
In  the  absence  of  charter  or  statutory  provisions  affecting  its  right, 
it  is  competent  for  a  railroad  company  to  determine  for  itself 
within  what  limits  it  will  act  as  a  common  carrier,  what  business 
it  will  engage  in,  what  means  and  methods  of  transportation  it 
will  employ,  what  goods  it  will  carry,  and  between  what  points 

9.  Gordon  v.  Hutchinson,  1  W.  &  11.  Chevallier  v.  Straliam,  2  Tex. 
S.  (Pa.)  285,  37  Am.  Dec.  464;  Hahl  119,  47  Am.  Dec.  639;  Haynie  v. 
V.  Laux,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App.  182,  93  S.       Baylor,  18  Tex.  498. 

V.  1080.  12.  Piedmont    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Colura- 

10.  Craig  v.  Childress,  Peck  bia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  S.  C.  353,  16  Am. 
(Tenn.).  270.  14  Am.  Dec.  751;  Tur-       &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  194. 

Dey  V.  \vii-r,n.  7  Yerg.    (Tenn.)    340,  13.  Steinman   v.   Wilkina,   7   W.   & 

27  Am.  Dec.  615;  Moses  v.  Norria,  4      S.   (Pa.)  466,  42  Am.  Dec.  254. 
N.  H.  308. 


20 


TllK    LAW    OF    CAKHIKRS. 


ninl  niulcr  \v1i;it  circunistnnccs  and  conditions  it  will  roccive  tlie 
-•^:iine,  subji'ot  always  to  the  limitation  that  it  must  act  in  good 
faith,  reasonably,  and  not  arbitrarily  or  capriciously,  and  without 
discrimination;  doing  for  all  under  like  circumstances  what  it 
docs  lor  any." 

§  2.  The  liability  of  the  common  carrier. 

The  common  law  liability  of  the  common  carrier  of  goods,  in 
the  absence  of  special  contract  or  proven  custom  limiting  such 
liability,  is  that  of  an  insurer  against  loss  or  injury  of  the  prop- 
erty, while  in  its  custody  or  under  its  control  as  a  common  carrier, 
or  until  delivery  or  what  is  deemed  tantamount  to  delivery  to  the 
consignee  or  owner,  excepting  only  those  losses  or  injuries  caused 
by  the  act  of  God  or  the  public  enemy.^     But  the  strict  rule  of 


14.  Harp  v.  Choctaw,  etc.,  Ry.  Co. 
(U.  S.  C.  C.  Ark.),  118  Fed.  169. 

15.  Common  law  liability  that  of 
an  insurer.  U.  S. — Holladay  v.  Kcn- 
iiiird,  12  Wall.  (U.  S.)  254;  Fear- 
son  V.  Duane,  71  U.  S.  (4  Wall.)  605, 
18  L.  Ed.  447;  Diisar  v.  Murgatroyd, 

1  Wash.  (U.  S.)  17;  Pendall  v. 
Pvench,  4  McLean  (U.  S.),  259;  Bur- 
ritt  V.  Rench,  4  McLean  (U.  S.),  325. 

Ala. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Guire,  79  Ala.  395;  Jones  v.  Pitcher, 
3  ^tew.  &  P.  (Ala.)  135,  24  Am.  Dec. 
716. 

Ark. — Packard  v.  Taylor,  35  Ark. 
402.  37  Am.  Rep.  37. 

Cal. — Cohannan  v.  Hammond,  42 
Cal.  227;  Hooper  v.  Wells,  27  Cal. 
IGl,  85  Am.  Dec.  211. 

Conn. — Williams  v.  Grant.  1  Ccnn. 
4S7.  7   Am.  Dec.  235. 

De/. — Culbreth  v.  Philadplphia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Houst.    (Del.)    392. 

fja. — Clyde  Steamer  Co.  v.  Bur- 
rows, 36  Fla.  121. 

Ca. — Cooper  v.  Berry,  21  Ga.  52C, 
f.8  Am.  Dec.  468;   Fish  v.  Chapman, 

2  Ga.  349,  A^  Am.  Dfc.  303. 


III. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Saw- 
yer, 69  in.  285,  18  Am.  Rep.  613; 
Chicaga,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shea,  66  IlL 
471;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  McCiel- 
lan,  54  111.  58,  5  Am.  Rep.  83;  West- 
ern Transp.  Co.  v.  Newhall,  24  111. 
466,  76  Am.  Dec.  760. 

Ind. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Nicholai,  4  Ind.  App.  119,  30  N.  E. 
424,  45  Alb.  L.  J.  412;  Adams  E.k- 
press  Co.  v.  Darnell,  31  Ind.  20,  99 
Am.  Dec.  582;  Banscmer  v.  Toledo, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Ind.  434,  87  Am.  Dec. 
367. 

Ky. — Bland  v.  Adams  E.xpress  Co., 
1  Duv.  (Ky.)  232.  85  Am.  Dec.  523; 
Robertson  v.  Kennedy,  2  Dana  (Ky.), 
431,  26  Am.  Dec.  466;  Hall  v.  Ken- 
fro.   3  Mete.    (Ky.)    51. 

La. — Berje  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
37  La.  Ann.  4C8;  Cranwell  v.  Sliip 
Fanny  Fosdick,  15  La.  Ann.  436,  77 
Am.  Dec.  190;  Van  Hern  v.  Taylor, 
7  Rob.    (La.)    201,  41  Am.   Dec.  279. 

Me. — Fillebrown  v.  Grand  Trunk 
R.  Co.,  65  Me.  462,  92  Am.  Dec.  606; 
Parker  v.  Flagg,  26  Me.  181,  45  Am. 
Dec.  101. 


COMMON    CARRIERS. 


27 


the  common  law  is  not  now  lield  to  apply  to  carriers  of  live 


Md. — Ferguson  v.  Brent,  12  Md.  9, 
71  Am.  Dec.  582. 

Ma/is. — Claflin  v.  Boston,  etc.,  E. 
Co.,  7  Allen   (Mass.),  341. 

Miss. — Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Weiner,  49  Miss.  725;  Southern  Ex- 
press Co.  V.  Moon,  39  Miss.  822;  Ben- 
nett V.  Byram,  38  Miss.  17,  75  Am. 
Dec.  90;  Powell  v.  Mills,  30  Miss. 
231,  64  Am.  Dec.  158;  VVhitesides  v. 
Thurlkill,  12  Smed.  &  M.  (Miss.) 
599,  51  Am.  Dec.  128;  Gilmore  v. 
Carman,  1  Smed.  &  M.  (Miss.)  279, 
40  Am.  Dec.  9G;  Neal  v.  Saunderson, 
2  Smed.  &  M.  (Miss.)  572,  41  Am, 
Dec.  609. 

i/o.— -Davis  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
89  Mo  340,  26  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
315,  ret^g.  13  Mo.  App.  449;  Daggett 
V.  Shaw,  3  Mo.  264,  25  Am.  Dec.  439. 
N.  H. — Moses  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  24  N.  H.  71,  55  Am.  Dec.  222. 

N.  J. — ^Xew  Brunswick  Steamboat, 
etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v.  Tiers,  24  N.  J.  L. 
697,  64  Am.  Dec.  394. 

N.  Y. — McKinney  v.  Jewett,  90  N. 
Y.  267,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  209, 
affg.  24  Hun  (N.  Y.),  19;  Read  v. 
Spaulding,  30  N.  Y.  630,  86  Am.  Dec. 
426;  Michaels  v.  New  York  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  30  N.  Y.  564,  86  Am.  Dec.  415; 
Merritt  v.  Earle,  29  N.  Y.  115,  86 
Am.  Dec.  292;  Howe  v.  Oswego,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  56  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  121;  Heine- 
man  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  31  How. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  430;  Parsons  v.  Hardy, 
14  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  215,  28  Am.  Dec. 
521;  De  Jfott  V.  Laraway,  14  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  225,  28  Am.  Dec.  523;  Colt 
V.  Mc^fochr.n.  6  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  160, 
5   Am.  Dec.  200. 

V.  C. — Boner  v.  Merchants'  Steam- 
1-oat  Co.,  1  Jones  L.  (N.  C.)  211; 
Harrell  v.  Owens,  1  Dev.  &.  B.  L.  (N. 
C.)    273. 


Ohio. — Welsh  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  10  Ohio  St.  65,  75  Am.  Dec.  490. 
Pa. — Willock  V.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  166  Pa.  St.  184,  45  Am.  St.  Rep. 
674,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  278; 
Leonard  v.  Hendrickson,  18  Pa.  St. 
40,  55  Am.  Dec.  587;  Simpson  v. 
Hand,  6  Whart.  (Pa.)  311,  36  Am. 
Dec.  231. 

8.  C. — Porcher  v.  Northeastern  R. 
Co.,  14  Rich.  L.  (S.  C.)  181;  Ewart 
V.  Street,  2  Bailey  L.  (S.  C.)  157, 
23  Am.  Dec.  131;  Smyrl  v.  Niolon,  2 
Bailey  L.  (S.  C.)  421,  23  Am.  Dec. 
146. 

Tcnn. — Watson  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  9  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  255;  Nashville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  David,  6  Heisk. 
(Tenn.)  261,  19  Am.  Rep.  594;  Tur- 
ney  v.  Wilson,  7  Yerg.  (Tenn.)  340, 
27  Am.  Dec.  515;  Craig  v.  Childress, 
Peck  (Tenn.),  270,  14  Am.  Dec.  751; 
Lewis  V.  Ludwick,  6  Coldw.  (Tcnii.) 
368,  98  Am.  Dec.  454. 

Tea;.— Philleo  v,  Sanford,  17  Tex. 
231,  67  Am.  Dec.  654;  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Morse,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Cas. 
§  411;  Texas  Express  Co.  v.  Scott, 
16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  Ill;  Cheval- 
lier  V.  Straham,  2  Tex.  115,  47  Am. 
Dec.  639. 

Vt. — Blumenthal  v.  Brainerd,  33 
Vt.  402,  91  Am.  Dec.  349;  Day  v. 
Ridley,  16  Vt.  48,  42  Am.  Dec.  489. 

Fa.— Parish  v.  Rciglc,  11  Gratt. 
(Va.)  697,  62  Am.  Dec.  666;  Friend 
V.  Woods,  6  Gratt.  (Va.)  189.  52  Am. 
Dec.  119;  Murphy  v.  Staton,  3  Munf. 
(Va.)   239. 

Wis. — Strolim  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  23  Wis.  136,  99  Am.  Dec.  114; 
Wood  v.  Crocker,  18  Wis.  345,  86 
Am.  Dec.  773. 

Enfj. — Coggs  V.  Bernard,  2  Ld. 
Raym.    909,    1    Smith's    L.    Cas.    199; 


28 


THE    LAW    OF    CAraUEllS. 


Stock;"  nor  where  the  loss  or  injury  n^ultca  from  the  inherent 
nature  of  the  goods;  "  nor  where  the  loss  or  injury  was  duo  to  the 
Dogligenoo  of  the  shipper;  "  nor  where  the  loss  or  injury  resulted 
from  delay  in  the  transmission  of  the  goods ;  "  nor  where  the  loss 
or  injury  was  caused  by  the  exercise  of  public  authority.^"  The 
rule  imposing  tho  severe  responsibility  of  an  insurer  upon  him 
who  undertook  the  task  of  carrying  goods  for  the  public  which 
prevailed  under  the  common  law  of  England  and  the  civil  law  of 
Kome  originated  in  times  when  transportation,  both  by  land  and 
water,  was  insecure,  and  when  the  risk  of  collusion  between  the 
carrier  and  pirates  or  thieves  was  great.  It  was  thought  that  in 
no  other  way  could  fidelity  bo  insured.  The  liability  imposed  was 
thus  based  largely  upon  reasons  of  public  policy,  and  did  not  rest 
wholly  on  contract,  express  or  implied,  between  the  carrier  and 
the  shipper.-^    It  is  upon  this  obligation  to  carry  and  deliver  safely 


Riley  v.  Home,  5  Bing.  217,  15  E.  C. 
L,  422;  Kugent  v.  Smith,  1  C.  P. 
Div.  19,  423;  Forward  v.  Pittard,  1 
T.  R.  27,  1  Rev.  Rep.  146. 

16.  See  §  3. 

17.  See   §   4,  post. 

18.  See  §  5,  post. 

19.  See  §  6,  post. 

20.  See  §  7,  post. 

21.  Reasons  for  severe  responsi- 
bility.— In  the  case  of  Nugent  v. 
Smith,  L.  R.  1  C.  P.  19,  423,  Brett, 
J.,  after  stating  that  the  real  test 
•whether  a  man  is  a  common  carrier 
is  whether  he  holds  out,  either  ex- 
pressly or  by  a  course  of  conduct, 
that  he  will  carry  for  hire,  so  long  as 
he  has  room,  the  goods  of  all  persons 
indilTercntly  who  send  him  goods  to 
be  carried,  says:  "If  he  does  this, 
his  first  responsibility  naturally  la 
that  he  is  bound  by  a  promise,  im- 
plied by  law,  to  receive  and  carry 
for  a  reasonable  price  the  goods  sent 
to  hira  upon  such  an  invitation.  Tins 
responsibility  is  not  one  adopted 
from   the   Roman   law   on   grounds   of 


policy;  it  arises  according  to  the 
general  principles  which  govern  all 
implied  promises.  And  his  second 
responsibility,  which  arises  upon  rea- 
sons of  policy,  is  that  he  carries  the 
goods  upon  a  contract  of  insurance. 
Tliis  policy  has  fixed  the  latter  lia- 
bility upon  common  carriers  by  land 
and  water,  not  because  they  hold 
themselves  out  to  carry  for  all  per- 
sons indifferently;  if  that  were  all, 
there  would  be  no  ground  for  the 
policy;  it  would  be  without  reason. 
Many  other  persons  hold  themselves 
out  to  act  in  their  trade  or  business 
for  all  persons  indifferently  who  will 
employ  them,  and  the  policy  in  ques- 
tion is  not  applied  to  such  trades; 
the  policy  is  applied  to  the  trade  of 
common  carriers,  because  when  the 
common  law  adopted  that  poller  the 
business  of  common  carriers  in  Eng- 
land was  exercised  in  a  particular 
manner  and  subject  to  particular 
conditions,  which  called  for  the  adop- 
tion of  that  policy." 

In   Copgs  V.  Bernard.  2  Ld.  Raym. 


COMMON    CAHRIERS. 


2i) 


imposed  by  law,  and  existing  independently  of  any  special  con- 
tract, founded  upon  grounds  of  public  policy  to  give  due  security 
to  property,  that  tbe  liability  of  the  common  carrier  for  the  loss 
of  property  intrusted  to  it  for  transportation  rests.^    The  rule  of 


909,  1  Smith's  L.  Cas.  199,  Lord  Holt 
said :  "  The  law  charges  this  person, 
thus  intrusted  to  carry  goods,  against 
all  events  but  acts  of  God  and  of  the 
enemies  of  the  King.  For,  though 
the  force  be  never  so  great,  as  if  an 
irresistible  multitude  of  people  should 
rob  him,  nevertheless  he  is  charge- 
able. And  this  is  a  politic  establish- 
ment, contrived  by  the  policy  of  the 
law  for  the  safety  of  all  persons,  the 
necessity  of  whose  affairs  obliges 
them  to  trust  these  sorts  of  persons, 
tliat  they  may  be  safe  in  their  ways 
of  dealing;  for  else  these  carriers 
might  have  an  opportunity  of  undo- 
ing all  persons  that  had  any  dealings 
with  them,  by  combining  with 
thieves,  etc.;  and  yet  doing  it  in  such 
a  clandestine  manner  as  would  be 
impossible  to  be  discovered.  And  this 
is  th.e  reason  the  law  is  founded  upon 
in  that  point." 

In  Riley  v.  Home,  5  Bing.  217,  15 
E.  C.  L.  422,  Best,  C.  J.,  said: 
"When  goods  are  delivered  to  a  car- 
rier, they  are  usually  no  longer  under 
the  eye  of  the  owner;  he  seldom  fol- 
lows or  sonds  any  servants  with  them 
to  the  place  of  their  destination.  If 
they  should  be  lost  or  injured  by  the 
grossest  nogligence  of  the  carrier  or 
his  servants,  or  stolen  by  them,  or 
by  thieves  in  collusion  with  them,  the 
owner  would  be  unable  to  prove 
either  of  these  caines  of  loss.  His 
witnoBses  must  be  the  carrier's  serv- 
ants; and  they,  knowing  that  they 
could  not  be  contradict/'d,  would  ex- 
cuse   their    masters    and    fhPmselveM. 


To  give  due  security  to  property,  the 
law  has  added  to  that  responsibility 
of  a  carrier,  which  immediately 
arises  out  of  his  contract  to  carry  for 
a  reward,  namely,  that  of  taking  all 
reasonable  care  of  it,  the  responsi- 
bility of  an  insurer.  From  his  lia- 
bility as  an  insurer,  the  carrier  is 
only  to  be  relieved  by  two  things, 
both  so  well  known  to  all  the  country 
when  they  happen,  that  no  person 
would  be  so  rash  as  to  attempt  to 
prove  that  they  had  happened  when 
they  had  not,  namely,  the  act  of  God 
and  the  king's  enemies." 

22.  Coggs  V.  Bernard,  supra;  Ri- 
ley V.  Home,  supra.  The  liability 
exists  independent  of  contract  when 
the  defendant,  being  a  common  car- 
rier, has  in  his  custody  for  trans- 
portation the  plaintiff's  property,  and 
by  his  negligence  or  in  violation  of 
duty,  it  is  lost.  Merritt  v.  Earle,  29 
N.  Y.  115,  86  Am.  Dec.  292;  Allen 
V.  Sewall,  2  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  338;  Thur- 
man  v.  Wells,  18  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  500; 
Johnson  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  90  Ga.  810;  Delaware,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Trautwein,  52  N.  J.  L.  169,  19 
Am.  St.  Rep.  442,  41  Am.  &,  Eng.  R, 
Cas.  187;  Arnold  v.  Jones,  26  Tex. 
335,  82  Am.  Dec.  617;  Wood  v. 
Crocker,  18  Wis.  345,  86  Am.  Dec. 
773. 

The  liability  of  a  common  carrier 
does  not  rest  in  his  contract,  but  is 
a  liability  imposed  by  laio.  It  exists 
independently  of  the  contract,  hav- 
ing it«  foundation  in  the  policy  of 
the  Inw.  nnd   it  is  upon  this  logal  oh- 


30 


THE    LAW    OF    CArvKlERS. 


liability  tLua  ostnblislicd  by  tbo  common  law,  except  as  modified 
bv  statute  and  modern  adjudications,  in  the  respects  already  noted 
liud  hcroinaftor  referred  to,  to  suit  our  character  and  circum- 
stances applies  to  common  carriers  of  all  kinds,  whether  by  land 
or  water.^  The  common  law  liability  of  a  carrier,  or  the  common 
law  liability  as  modi  lied  by  statute,  is  always  presumed  to  be  the 
measure  of  his  liability,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary, 
and  the  burden  of  proving  the  actual  contract  rests  upon  the  party 
who  claims  exemption  by  reason  thereof  from  the  ordinary  lia- 
bility of  common  carriers  in  a  particular  case.^* 


ligation  tlmt  he  is  cliargod  as  carrier 
for  tlie  loss  of  property  intrusted  to 
him.  Hoilister  v.  Nowlen,  19  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  239,  32  Am.  Dec.  455;  Ansell 
V.  Watcrlioube,  1  Chit.  1;  Edwards 
Bailm.  466. 

23.  Houston,  etc.,  Nav.  Co.,  v. 
Dwyer,  29  Tex.  376.  See  Owners  and 
masters  of  ships  and  steamboats  or 
vessels,  §  29,  post.  AngcU  Carr. 
§§  166,  223;  2  Kent's  Com.  216;  9 
U.  S.  Stat,  at  Large,  G35. 

24.  Jennings  v.  Grand  Trunk 
K.  Co.,  127  N.  Y.  438,  447;  Parli  v. 
Preston,  108  N.  Y.  434;  Dorr  v. 
New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  11  N. 
Y.  485,  62  Am.  Dec.  125;  Blossom  v. 
Dodd,  43  N.  Y.  264,  3  Am.  Rep.  701; 
Madan  v.  Sherrard,  73  N.  Y.  330,  29 
Am.  Rep.  153;  New  Jersey  R.  Co. 
V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  27  N.  J.  L. 
100;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bar- 
rett, 36  Ohio  St.  448,  3  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  257;  Graham  v.  Davis,  4 
Ohio  St.  376,  62  Am.  Dec.  285;  Pe- 
oria, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  United  States 
Rolling  Stock  Co.,  136  111.  643,  29 
Am.  St.  Rep.  348,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  81;  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav. 
Co.  V.  Merchants'  Bank,  6  How.  (U. 
B.)   344. 

Tlie  defendants,  safe  movers,  are 
iK)t    relieved  from    liability    as    com- 


mon carriers  for  the  breaking  of  ma- 
chinery being  moved  by  them,  be- 
cause plaintiff  insisted  on  having  the 
machine  placed  after  dark,  they  liav- 
ing  a  right  to  refuse  if  they  chose, 
and  to  stipulate  from  immunity  from 
damages  if  it  increased  their  risk  as 
insurers.  Jackson  Architectural 
Iron  Works  v.  Hurlburt,  15  Misc. 
Rep.  (N.  Y.)  93,  35  N.  Y.  Supp.  808. 
Upon  the  appeal  in  the  case  last 
cited,  the  court  said:  "  This  interfer- 
ence on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff's 
agents  is  said  to  constitute  contribu- 
tory negligence.  It  is  quite  suffi- 
cient to  say,  with  respect  to  that 
branch  of  the  defense,  that  the  evi- 
dence was  of  such  a  character  that 
required  the  court  to  submit  it  to 
the  jury,  and  it  was  submitted  with 
instructions  that,  if  it  was  shown 
that  the  negligence  of  the  plaintifT 
or  its  agents  contributed  in  any  way 
to  the  injury,  there  could  be  no  re- 
covery. So  the  questions  of  negli- 
gence and  contributory  negligence 
have  been  removed  by  the  verdict  of 
the  jury  from  the  domain  of  contro- 
versy in  this  court.  Id,  158  N.  Y.  34, 
39. 

Where  a  common  carrier  under- 
takes, by  the  contract  expressed  in 
the    bill    of    lading,     to    deliver     the 


COMMON    CARRIERS. 


31 


§  3.  Liability  in  the  carrying  of  live  stock. 

The  common  law  liability  of  a  carrier  may  be  limited  by  tbe 
intrinsic  character  of,  or  defects  in,  the  subject  matter  of  the  con- 
tract. This  limitation  was  applied  to  contracts  for  the  carriage 
of  slaves,  when  slavery  existed  in  the  United  States,  the  carrier, 
in  such  cases,  being  held  not  to  be  an  insurer  but  a  carrier  of 
passengers,  and  liable  only  for  want  of  care  and  skill.^^  This  rule 
has  found  its  most  frequent  illustration  in  the  case  of  contracts 
for  the  transportation  of  live  stock.  The  carrier  who  undertakes 
the  carriage  of  living  animals  is  not  answerable  for  damage  caused 
by  the  conduct  or  propensities  of  the  animals  themselves.  In  other 
respects  the  common  law  responsibilities  of  the  carrier  will 
attach.^'* 


goods  at  their  destination,  without 
stipulating  that  he  sliall  not  be  liable 
for  losses  resulting  from  any  cause, 
his  undertaking  will  not  amount  to 
an  absolute  undertaking,  and  he  will 
not  be  liable  for  losses  resulting 
from  an  act  of  God  or  a  public  enemy. 
Neal  V.  Saunderson,  2  Smed.  &  M. 
(Mi=3.)    572,  41  Am.  Dec.  609. 

No  presumption  as  to  special  con- 
tract.— The  fact  that  defendant  was 
accustomed  to  give  shippers  receipts 
containing  a  provision  that  it  would 
not  be  liable  for  loss  by  fire  will  not 
support  a  presumption  that  there 
was  a  special  contract  between  plain- 
tiff's assignors  and  defendant, 
whereby  its  liability  as  a  common 
carrier  did  not  include  loss  by  fire, 
in  the  absence  of  any  showing  that 
such  a  receipt  was  ever  giver  to 
plaintifT's  assignors,  or  came  to  their 
knowledge.  London,  etc.,  Fire  Ins. 
Co.  V.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Hun  (N. 
Y.),  598,  23  N.  Y.  Supp.  231. 

25.  Williams  v.  Taylor,  4  Porter 
(Ala.)  234;  Boyce  v.  Anderson,  2 
Peters  (U.  S.)  150;  Clark  v.  Mc- 
Donald, 4  McCord   (S.  C.)   223. 


26.  "  In  the  transportation  of  such 
stock,  in  the  absence  of  negligence, 
the  carrier  is  relieved  from  responsi- 
bility for  such  injuries  as  occur  in 
consequences  of  the  vitality  of  the 
freight.  He  does  not  absolutely  war- 
rant live  freight  against  the  conse- 
quences of  its  own  vitality.  Animals 
may  injure  or  destroy  themselves  or 
each  other;  they  may  die  from  fright 
or  from  starvation  because  they  re- 
fuse to  eat,  or  they  may  die  from 
heat  or  cold.  In  all  such  cases  the 
carrier  is  relieved  from  responsibil- 
ity if  he  can  show  that  he  has  pro- 
vided all  suitable  means  of  transpor- 
tation and  exercised  that  degree  of 
care  which  the  nature  of  the  property 
requires."  Cragin  v.  New  York  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  51  N.  Y.  61;  Clarke  v.  Roch- 
ester, etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  N.  Y.  570;  Bis- 
sell  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  25  N. 
Y.  442;  Smith  v.  New  Haven,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  94  Mass.  531. 

"  According  to  the  established  rule 
as  to  the  liability  of  a  common  car- 
rier, he  is  understood  to  guarantee 
that  (with  the  well  known  exception 
of  the  act  of  God  and  of  public  ene- 


32 


rilE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 


§  4.  Liability  where  loss  or  injury  results  from  the  inherent  na- 
ture of  the  goods. 
The  same  priiu'iples  which  rolieve  the  carrier  from  its  strict 
liability  in  carrviiig  live  stix'k  apply  with  cipial  force  to  coulrucls 


rail's)  the  goods  intrusted  to  liiin 
shall  seasonably  reach  their  destina- 
tion, and  that  they  sluill  recoive  no 
injury  from  the  manner  in  which 
their  transportation  is  accomplished. 
But  he  is  not,  necessarily  and  under 
all  circumstances,  responsible  for  the 
condition  in  which  they  may  be 
found  uiHHi  their  arrival.  The  ordi- 
nary and  natural  decay  of  fruit,  veg- 
etables and  other  perishable  articles, 
the  fermentation,  evaporation  or  un- 
avoidable leakage  of  liquids,  the 
spontaneous  combustion  of  some 
kinds  of  goods,  are  matters  to  which 
the  implied  obligation  of  the  car- 
rier, as  an  insurer,  does  not  extend. 
He  is  liable  for  all  accidents  and  mis- 
management incident  to  the  transpor- 
tation and  to  the  means  and  appli- 
ances by  which  it  is  efiected;  but 
not  for  injuries  produced  by,  or  re- 
sulting from,  the  inherent  defects  or 
essential  qualities  of  tiie  articles 
which  he  undertakes  to  transport. 
The  extent  of  his  duty  in  this  respect 
is  to  take  all  reasonable  care  and 
use  all  proper  precautions  to  prevent 
such  injuries,  or  to  diminish  their 
effect  as  far  as  he  can;  but  his  lia- 
bility, in  such  cases,  is  by  no  means 
that  of  an  insurer.  .  .  .  They  would 
be  unconditionally  liable  for  all  in- 
juries occasioned  by  the  improper 
construction  or  unsafe  condition  of 
the  carriage  in  which  the  horses 
were  conveyed,  or  by  its  improper 
position  in  the  train,  or  by  the  want 
of  reasonable  equipment,  or  by  any 
mismanagement,  or  want  of  due  care. 
or  by  any  other  accident  (not  within 
the  well   known   exception)    affecting 


either  the  train  generally  or  that 
particular  carriage.  But  the  trans- 
portation of  horses  or  other  domestic 
animals  is  not  subject  to  precisely 
the  same  rules  as  that  of  packages 
and  inanimate  chattels.  Living  ani- 
mals have  excitabilities  and  voli- 
tions of  their  own  which  greatly  in- 
crease the  risks  and  dilliculties  of 
management.  They  are  carried  in  a 
mode  entirely  opposed  to  their  in- 
stincts and  habits;  they  may  be 
made  uncontrollable  by  fright,  or, 
notwithstanding  every  precaution, 
may  destroy  themselves  in  attempt 
ing  to  break  loose,  or  may  kill  eacli 
other."  Evans  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co., 
Ill  Mass.  142;  Story  Bailm.,  §  576. 
"  The  carrier  would  not  be  held 
responsible,"  it  has  been  held,  "  where 
horses  or  other  animals  were  be- 
ing transported  by  water,  and  in 
consequence  of  a  storm  broke  down 
the  partitions  between  them,  and  by 
kicking  each  other  some  of  them  were 
killed."  Lawrence  v.  Aberdein,  5  B. 
&  Aid.  107;  Angell  Carr.,  §  214a. 

In  Myrrick  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  107  U.  S.  102,  107,  the  court 
said:  "Although  a  railroad  company 
is  not  a  common  carrier  of  live  ani- 
mals in  the  same  sense  that  it  is  a 
carrier  of  goods,  its  responsibilities 
being  in  many  respects  diflTerent,  yet, 
when  it  undertakes  generally  to  carry 
such  freight,  it  assumes  under  simi- 
lar conditions  the  same  obligations 
so  far  as  the  route  is  concerned  over 
which  the  freight  is  to  be  carried." 
In  some  states,  howrver,  the  rule 
appears  to  be  difTerent.  It  is  there 
held  that  railroads  are  not  bound  to 


COMMON    CARRIERS, 


33 


for  the  carriage  of  perishable  property.  The  carrier  is  not  liable 
for  injuries  caused  by  its  intrinsic  defects,  and  not  from  any  want 
of  care  on  the  part  of  the  carrier.^'  But  he  is  bound  to  take  rea- 
sonable means  to  guard  against  such  injuries,^  to  use  special  dill- 


receive  live  stock  as  common  carri- 
ers, and  if  they  carry  them  at  all, 
they  may  do  so  under  a  different  lia- 
bility from  that  of  other  freight. 
See  Carriers  of  Live  Stock. 

See  also  in  support  of  the  rule 
stated  in  the  text:  South  &  North 
Alabama  R.  Co.  v.  Henlien,  52  Ala. 
606;  Agnew  v.  Steamer  Contra  Costa, 
27  Cal.  425;  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Jurey,  8  Bradw.  (111.  App.)  160; 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harmon,  12 
Bradw.  (111.  App.)  54;  McCoy  v.  The 
K.  &  D.  M.  R.  Co.,  44  Iowa,  424;  CM- 
cago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Abels,  60  Miss. 
1017;  Mynard  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  71  N.  Y.  180;  Bamberg  v.  South 
Carolina  R.  Co.,  9  S.  C.  61;  Palmer 
v.  Grand  Junction  R.  Co.,  4  M.  &  W. 
749;  Kimball  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
26  Vt.  247.  Compare  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  Harris,  67  Tex.  166;  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Fagan  (Tex.),  9 
S.  W.  749;  Rixford  v.  Smith,  52  N. 
H.  355;  Maslin  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  14  W.  Va.  180.  See  Carriers  of 
Live  Stock. 

Carriers  of  animals  are  common 
carriers  subject  to  the  same  responsi- 
bilities imposed  by  law  on  carriers 
of  other  property,  except  as  this  is 
modified  by  the  inherent  character 
of  such  property.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  V.  Cornwall,  70  Tex.  611,  8  S. 
W.  312;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ellison, 
70  Tpx.  491,  7  S.  W.  785. 

27.  Evans  v.  Fitchburp  R.  Co.,  Ill 
Mass.    142    (opinion    quoted   from    in 
note  26  to  §  3,  ante)  ;   Illinois  Cent. 
3 


R.  Co.  V.  McClellan,  54  111.  58,  5  Am. 
Rep.  83;  Vail  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  63 
Mo.  230;  McGraw  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  C,  18  W.  Va.  361,  41  Am.  Rep. 
696,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  188.  See 
also,  Nugent  v.  Smith,  1  C.  P.  Dlv. 
423,  45  L.  J.  C.  P.  Div.  697;  Kendall 
V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  7  Exch. 
373,  41  L.  J.  Exch.  184;  Alston  V. 
Herning,  11  Exch.  822;  Brass  v. 
Maitland,  6  El.  &  Bl.  471,  88  E.  C. 
L.  471;  Rohl  v.  Parr,  1  Esp.  N.  P. 
445;  Boyd  v.  Dubois,  3  Campb.  133; 
Hunter  v.  Potts,  4  Campb.  203. 

The  common  law  rule  making  car- 
riers liable  for  loss  or  damage  to 
goods,  except  such  as  result  from  the 
act  of  God  or  the  public  enemy,  does 
not  apply  to  a  loss  which  results 
from  deterioration  in  quantity  or 
quality,  or  from  any  inherent  natural 
infirmity,  or  tendency  to  damage,  or 
decay  of  perishable  articles,  or  ordi- 
nary wear  or  tear,  or  rubbing,  in 
course  of  transportation,  where  these 
things  occur  without  negligence  on 
the  part  of  the  carriers;  nor  are 
they  liable  for  injuries  that  arise 
from  bad  packing  by  the  shippers. 
Truax  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
3  Houst.   (Del.)   233. 

28.  Davidson  v.  Gwynne,  12  East, 
381;  Notara  v.  Henderson,  L.  R.  5 
Q.  B.  225,  where  the  carrier  failed 
to  spread  out  and  dry  beans  which 
had  become  wet  by  an  accident  to  the 
vessel;  Bird  v.  Cromwell,  1  Mo.  81, 
13  Am.  Dec.  470;  Chouteaux  ▼. 
I^ech,   18   Pa.  St.  224,   57  Am.  Dec, 


34 


THK    I.AW    OF    CARRIERS. 


oonoo  to  avoia  ilclay  in  transportation,'"'  and  givo  it  a  preforcuco 
in   transportation  over  nonpcrisliable  goods,  if  he  is  not  able  to 


602.  wluTo,  in  tlic  course  of  trans- 
portation, certain  furs  were  wet, 
tlirough  an  acciiiont  to  the  boat,  it 
was  held  that  it  was  the  carrier's 
duty  to  unpack  them  and  allow  them 
to  dry  immediately,  and  for  a  failure 
to  do  90  the  carrier  was  liable  for 
the  damage  which  such  attention 
would  have  averted. 

So,  where  dressed  meat  was  being 
carried,  and,  owing  to  a  delay  of  the 
vessel,  the  ice  in  which  it  was 
packed  melted  away,  it  was  held  that 
the  carrier  was  liable  for  the  damage 
resulting  from  its  failure  to  supply 
ice,  it  appearing  that  it  was  practi- 
cable to  have  done  so.  Sherman  v. 
Inman  Steamship  Co.,  26  Hun  (N. 
Y.),  107;  Peck  v.  Weeks,  34  Conn. 
145. 

Failure  to  prevent  leakage.  A  car- 
rier was  held  liable  for  failure  to  wet 
casks  containing  oil  in  order  to  pre- 
vent their  leakage;  and  the  fact  that 
loss  from  leakage  was  one  of  the  spe- 
cial exceptions  in  the  bill  of  lading 
releasing  the  carrier  from  liability 
was  held  not  to  affect  the  case,  where 
the  carrier  had  agreed  to  keep  the 
casks  wet.  Hennewell  v.  Taber,  2 
Sprague  (U.  S.)  1.  A  carrier  was 
also  liable  where,  after  becoming 
aware  that  a  cask  of  brandy  which 
was  being  carried  was  leaking,  he 
failed  to  take  any  steps  to  prevent 
further  leakage.  Beck  v.  Evans,  16 
East,  244;  Cox  v.  London,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  3  F.  &  F.  77.  See  also,  The 
Brig  Collenberg,  1  Black  (U.  S.)  170; 
Warden  v.  Greer,  6  Watts  (Pa.)  424; 
Leech    v.    Baldwin,    5    Watts     (Pa.) 


446;  Gowdy  v.  Lyon,  9  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 
112. 

29.  Kinnick  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  69  Iowa  665,  27  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  55,  where  a  railroad  company 
received  for  carriage  a  car  over- 
loaded with  hogs  without  objection, 
and  by  reason  of  delay  the  hogs 
"  piled  up "  and  were  injured,  the 
company  was  held  liable. 

A  carrier  was  held  liable  for  in- 
juries done  to  plants  by  frost  upon  a 
connecting  line,  it  being  shown  that 
the  injury  would  have  been  avoided 
had  the  goods  been  promptly  deliv- 
ered. Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cur- 
tis, 80  111.  324. 

In  the  transportation  of  meat  it 
has  been  held  that  a.  provision  in  a 
bill  of  lading  that  a  carrier  should 
not  be  liable  for  decay  did  not  pro- 
tect him  from  anything  more  than 
the  decay  due  to  the  intrinsic  tend- 
ency of  the  meat,  and  not  from  bad 
judgment  of  the  captain  in  persisting 
in  his  voyage  after  breaking  his 
shaft,  when  by  turning  back  he 
might  have  saved  the  meat.  The  jury 
had  found  that  it  was  negligence  in 
the  captain  to  persist  in  continuing 
his  voyage  under  the  circumstances. 
Sherman  v.  Inman  Steamship  (Ik).,  26 
Hun   (N.  Y.),  107. 

A  railroad  company  receiving  cat- 
tle for  transportation  must  carry 
them  with  reasonable  dispatch  and 
is  liable  for  an  injury  resulting  from 
delay.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ellison, 
70  Tex,  491,  7  S.  W.  785;  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Cornwall,  70  Tex.  611, 
8  S.  W.  312. 


COMMON    CARRIERS. 


35 


forward  both  at  once.'"  And  he  is  required  to  take  notice  of  any 
marks  upon  the  package  containing  the  goods,  which  indicate  the 
character  of  its  contents.^^  But  a  carrier  by  water  is  not  required 
to  suspend  a  voyage  to  care  for  the  damaged  goods  to  the  probable 
injury  of  the  remainder  of  the  cargo.^^ 

§  5.  Where  the  loss  or  injury  is  the  result  of  the  acts  of  the 
shipper. 
The  carrier  is  not  liable  for  losses  which  are  shown  to  have 
resulted  from  omissions  or  acts  of  the  shipper  which  are  the  proxi- 
mate cause  of  the  loss,  or  for  losses  caused  by  the  wrongful  con- 
duct or  fraud  of  the  shipper.  Such  contributory  negligence  on 
the  part  of  the  shipper  will  excuse  the  carrier  from  liabilitj,^^  as 


SO.  Marshall  v.  New  York  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  45  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  502,  where  the 
charge  of  the  judge  at  Circuit  that 
"  where  two  kinds  of  property  are  de- 
livered at  the  same  time  by  different 
owners,  one  of  which  kind  is  perish- 
able and  the  other  not,  preference  is 
to  be  given  to  that  which  is  perish- 
able in  transportation,  and  if  either 
must  wait,  it  must  be  that  which  is 
rot  perishable,"  was  sustained  on  ap- 
peal. The  court  said:  "The  ques- 
tion how  the  carrier  was  employed, 
and  how  he  used  and  employed  his 
means  of  transportation  during  any 
given  period  when  property  was  de- 
layed, would  always  be  a  proper  sub- 
ject of  inquiry,  and  that  on  this  in- 
quiry proof  that  his  means  of  trans- 
portation were  employed  in  trans- 
porting perishable  property,  in  pref- 
erence to  other  property  received  at 
the  same  time,  would  always  be  held 
a  sufficiont  excuse  for  delay." 

Where  there  is  a  great  press  of 
business,  the  carrier  may  discrimin- 
ate in  favor  of  perishable  goods  in 
determining  which  consignments  it 
will  carry  first.  Michigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.  v.  Burrows,  33  Mich.  6. 


31.  Hastings    v.    Pepper,    11    Pick. 
(Mass.)    41,   where   a   box   contained. 

oil  of  cloves,  and  the  mark  held  suf- 
ficient to  notify  the  carrier  was  = 
"  Glass — with  care — this  side  up,"  the 
carrier  was  held  bound  to  so  carry. 
But  an  express  company,  in  the  trans- 
portation of  brittle  goods  without 
notice  of  their  character,  was  held 
not  liable  to  the  extent  of  common 
carriers.  Bad  faith,  and  suppression 
of  the  truth  by  the  bailor,  will  re- 
lieve a  common  carrier  of  liability  as 
insurer.  American  Express  Co.  v. 
Perkins,  42  111.  458. 

32.  Notara  v.  Henderson,  L.  R.  5 
Q.  B.  346;  The  Steamboat  Lynx  v. 
King,  12  Mo.  272,  49  Am.  Dec.  135. 
See  also,  Rogers  v.  Murray,  3  Bosw. 
(N.  Y.)  357;  The  Propeller  Niagara 
v.  Cordes,  21  How.  (U.  S.)  7;  Tlie 
Steamboat  America,  8  Ben.  (U.  S.) 
491;  The  Gentleman,  1  Blatchf.  (U. 
S.)  196:  The  Bark  Gentleman,  1  Oic. 
Adm.  110;  Blocker  v.  Whittenburg, 
12  La.  Ann.  410. 

33.  Wilson  v.  Hamilton,  4  Ohio  St. 
722.  See  generally.  Contributory 
negligence   of   shipper,   chap.    13. 


THE    LAW    OF    CAKKIKRS. 


where  goods  are  improperly  marked  by  the  consig7K>r/*  or  im- 
properly packed  or  loaded,"  or  where  the  shipper  fails  to  inform 
the  carrier  of  the  eiiaracter  of  the  goods  or  of  their  value,^*  or 
fraudulently  conceals  tlie  contents  or  value,"  or  where  the  loss  or 
injury  is  due  to  the  improper  and  unwarrantable  interference  of 
the  shipper  with  the  property.^* 

§  6.  Where  the  loss  or  injury  is  the  result  of  delay  in  the  trans- 
mission of  the  goods. 
The  common  law  liability  of  the  carrier  as  an  insurer  may  be 
limited  in  cases  of  loss  resulting  from  delay  in  the  transportation 
and  delivery  of  goods,  occasioned  by  accident  or  misfortune  not 
inevitable  or  produced  by  the  act  of  God,  But  the  carrier  must 
exercise  due  discretion  and  reasonable  care  and  diligence  to  guard 
against  delay,  and  in  forwarding  the  gooda  to  their  destination.^* 


34.  Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Kauf- 
man, 59  Tenn.  161;  The  Huntress, 
12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  61,914;  Conger  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Wis.  157. 
But  the  rule  does  not  apply  where 
the  carrier's  agent  at  the  time  he  re- 
ceives the  goods  has  knowledge  of  the 
error.  O'Rourke  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  Iowa,  526;  Forsythe  v.  Wal- 
ker, 9  Pa.  St.   148. 

35.  Ross  V.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 
Vt.  364;  Loveland  v.  Burke,  120 
Mass.   139,  21  Am.  Rep.  507. 

36.  Oppenheimer  v.  United  States 
Express  Co.,  69  111.  62;  Magnin  v. 
Dinsmore.  70  N.  Y.  410;  Orange  Co. 
Bank  v.  Brown,  9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  85; 
Hollister  v.  Nowlen,  19  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)  234;  Hayes  v.  Wells,  Fargo  & 
Co.,  23  Cal.  185;  Western  Transp. 
Co.  V.  Newhall,  24  111.  466;  Farmers' 
Bank  v.  Champlain  Trans.  Co.,  23 
Vt.  186. 

37.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shea, 
66  111.  471. 

38.  Roderick  v.  Railroad  Co.,  7  W. 
Va.  54;   Hutchinson  v.  Chicago,  etc.. 


R.    Co.,    37    Minn.    534;     Conger    v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Wis.  157. 

39.  Geismer  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  563,  55  Am.  Rep. 
837,  26  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  287;  Wi- 
bert  V,  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  N. 
Y.  245;  Blackstock  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y.  48,  75  Am.  Dec.  372; 
Truax  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 
Iloust.  (Del.)  233;  Pittsburgh,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Hollowell,  65  Ind.  188,  33 
Am.  Rep.  63;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Levi,  76  Tex.  337,  revg.  12  S.  W.  677, 
40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  115.  The  rea- 
sons upon  which  the  common  law 
doctrine  that  a  common  carrier  is  an 
insurer  is  based  do  not  apply  when 
the  thing  is  actually  transported  and 
delivered,  although,  when  delivered, 
it  may  be  greatly  diminished  in 
value  by  a  fall  in  the  market  price,  or 
its  value  partially  or  entirely  de- 
stroyed by  reason  of  its  inherent  per- 
ishable nature,  which  has  worked  ita 
partial  or  entire  destruction  while  in 
transit. 


CX)MMON    CARRIERS.  37 

If,  in  the  exercise  of  due  care  and  diligence,  it  does  not  appear  that 
a  change  of  route  would  prevent  the  loss  attendant  upon  delay, 
he  is  not  bound  to  divert  the  goods  to  a  route  over  which  he  has 
no  control.  He  may  sell  the  goods  for  the  best  price  he  can  oV 
tain,  in  order  to  convert  what  would  inevitably  be  a  total  loss  into 
one  that  is  partial  merely.'*" 

§  7.  Where  the  loss  or  injury  is  caused  by  the  exercise  of  public 

authority. 
Where  goods  are  delivered  to  a  common  carrier  for  shipment, 
and  are  levied  upon  or  attached  in  the  hands  of  the  carrier  upon 
a  valid  writ  of  attachment  or  execution  or  other  legal  process,  by 
means  of  which  the  carrier  is  deprived  of  possession  of  the  prop- 
erty by  the  ofBcer  who  serves  the  writ,  the  carrier  is  not  liable 
to  the  shipper  for  the  non-delivery  of  the  goods,  provided  the 
writ  upon  its  face  is  a  valid  writ  and  from  a  court  having  com- 
petent jurisdiction  to  issue  it,  and  he  immediately  notifies  the 
shipper."  But  an  attachment  of  the  goods  against  one  not  the 
owner  does  not  excuse  the  carrier  from  delivering.*^  It  is  a  good 
defense  to  an  action  against  a  common  carrier  for  preventing  the 
levy  of  an  attachment  upon  property  in  its  hands  that  the  prop- 
erty does  not  belong  to  the  defendant  in  the  attachment.*^  A  car- 
rier is  required  to  give  prompt  notice  to  the  consignor  or  owner 
of  goods,  if  known,  of  their  seizure,  or  the  institution  of  legal 
proceedings  against  them  but  is  not  held  to  a  technical  observ- 
ance of  the  rule,  if  the  owner  has  timely  notice,  and  is  in  a  posi- 
tion by  the  exercise  of  ordinary  diligence  to  protect  his  title.  That 
goods  stolen  or  lost  by  reason  of  the  negligence  of  a  carrier  while 
in  its  possession  as  warehouseman  had  been  attached,  and  were 
in  the  custody  of  the  law,  does  not  relieve  the  carrier  from  liabil- 

40.  American  Ex.  Co.  v.  Smith,  33  42.  Edwards   v.   White   Line   Tran- 
Ohio  St.  511.  sit   Co.,   104   Mass.   159,   6   Am.   Rep. 

41.  Bliven  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  214;  KifT  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
36  N.  Y.   403;    Adams  v.   Scott,   104  117  Mass.  591,  19  Am.  Rep.  429. 
Mass   lf)4.     See  also,  cases  cited  un-  43.  Simpson    v.    Dufour,    126     Tnd. 
der  Seizure  by  legal  process,  chap.  7,  322,  26  N.  E.  69;  Pinpree  v.  Detroit, 
S§  5,  r>,  post.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Mich.  143,  11  Am.  St. 

Rep.  479. 


3S  TllK    LAW    OF    CARKIKRS. 

irv."  A  common  carrier  is  not  liable  for  tlio  value  of  fish  shipped 
over  its  line  which  were  seized  by  a  game  warden  on  the  ground 
that  the  tish  were  illegally  caught,  where  such  warden  had  neither 
legal  nor  apparent  legal  right  to  seize  the  same." 

§  8.  Liability  of  carriers  of  passengers. 

Carriers  of  passengers  are  coiuiiion  carriers  in  respect  to  the 
baggage  of  their  passengers  and  also  in  respect  to  their  passiui- 
gers  and  those  desiring  passage  on  their  conveyances,  but  llioir 
liability  to  passengers  for  personal  injuries  is  limited  to  t-ases 
where  their  negligence  in  the  performance  of  their  duties  is 
the  proximate  cause  of  the  injury;  they  are  not  insurers  of  the 
safety  of  their  passengers.''®  A  carrier  of  passengers  who  under- 
takes to  carry  goods  for  hire  subjects  himself  to  the  liability  of 
a  common  carrier  of  goods,  in  respect  to  such  goods,  except  where 
the  compensation  is  so  grossly  inadequate  as  to  render  the  appli- 
cation of  such  a  rule  of  liability  unjust;  in  such  a  case  he  is 
liable  merely  as  a  bailee." 

§  9.  Express  companies. 

The  express  business  is  a  branch  of  the  carrying  trade.'*^*  Express 
companies  undertaking  to  carry  or  cause  to  be  carried  goods  for 
hire  for  all  persons  indifferently  who  choose  to  employ  them,  are 
common  carriers.''^     Ordinarily  carters  and  expressmen  engaged 

44.  Frank  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  9  Pa.  (N.  Y.)  19,  overruling  Hersfield  v. 
Super.  Ct.  129.  Adams,  19  Barb.   (N.  Y.)    577;   Sher- 

45.  Merriman  v.  Great  Northern  man  v.  Wells,  28  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  403; 
Express  Co.,  63  Minn.  543,  65  N.  W.  Ilaslam  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  6 
1080.  Bosvv.     (N.    Y.)     235;    Southern    Ex- 

46.  See  Carriers  of  passengers,  press  Co.  v.  Ramey,  51  So.  314  (Ala. 
chap.  22.  1909)  ;    Brockway    v.    American    Ex- 

47.  Bean  v.  Sturtevant,  8  N.  H.  press  Co.,  168  Mass.  257,  47  N.  E.  87; 
146.  28   Am.  Dec.  389.  Stadhecker  v.  Combes,  9  Rich.  L.   (S. 

47a.  Southern     Exp,     Co.     v.     St.  C.)     193;     Southern    Express    Co.    v. 

Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  10  Fed.  210,  869.  Crook,  44  Ala.  468,  4  Am.  Rep.  140; 

48.  Belger  v.  Dinsmore,  51  N.  Y.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hess,  53  Ala. 
166,  10  Am.  Rep.  575;  Landsberg  v.  19;  U.  S.  Exp.  Co.  v.  Bachman,  28 
Dinsmore,  4  Daiy  (N.  Y.).  490;  Read  Oliio  St.  144;  Soiitliern  Exp.  Co.  v. 
▼.  Spaulding,  5  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  395,  Womack,  1  Heisk.  (Tonn.)  256; 
affd.  30  N.  Y.  630,  86  Am.  Dec.  426;  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Glenn,  16  Lea 
Place  V.  Union   Express   Co..   2   Hilt.  (Tenn.),   473;    Southern   Exp.   Co.   v. 


COMMON    CARRIERS. 


39 


in  carrying  freight  to  and  from  a  depot  or  warehouse,  or  between 
places  in  the  same  locality,  or  between  ditferent  localities,  are 
common  carriers.***  An  express  or  teaming  company  which  owns 
horses  and  wagons  and  hires  teamsters,  by  means  of  which 
merchandise  is  carried  throughout  a  city  for  the  public 
generally,  is  a  common  carrier  within  the  meaning  of  an 
ordinance  requiring  the  licensing  of  public  carts,  notwith- 
standing such  express  or  teaming  company  exercises  a  discre- 
tion as  to  the  persons  whom  it  will  serve. *^^  A  parcel  delivery 
company  is  a  common  carrier. *^°  Joint  stock  companies  engaged 
in  the  express  business  and  persons  whose  business  it  is  to  re- 
ceive packages  of  bullion,  coin,  bank  notes,  commercial  paper 
and  such  other  articles  of  value  as  persons  see  fit  to  trust  to  tlieir 
care  for  the  purpose  of  transporting  the  same  from  one  place 
tc  another  for  a  compensation,  are  common  carriers,  and  re- 
sponsible as  such  for  the  safe  delivery  of  property  intrusted  to 
them.*'     A  city   express   company,   engaged   in    carrying  parcels 


Newby,  36  Ga.  635,  91  Am.  Dec.  783; 
]5ank  of  Kentucky  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co., 
93  U.  S.  (3  Otto)  174;  Southern 
Exp.  Co.  V.  McVeigh,  20  Gratt.  (Va.) 
264;  Lowell  Wire  Fence  Co.  v.  Sar- 
gent, 8  Allen  (Mass.)  189;  Buckland 
V.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  97  Mass.  124,  93 
Am.  Dec.  68;  United  States  Exp.  Co. 
V.  Rush,  24  Ind.  403;  Baldwin  v. 
American  Exprei=s,  Co.,  23  HI.  197,  74 
Am.  Dec.  190.  26  111.  504;  American 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Pinckney,  29  111.  392;  Gul- 
liver V.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  38  III.  504; 
Baker  v.  Maher,  Howell  (Mich.  N. 
P.),  39;  Christenson  v.  American 
Exp.  Co.,  15  Minn.  270,  2  Am.  Rep. 
122;  Verner  v.  Sweitzer.  32  Pa.  St. 
208;  Kirby  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  2  Mo. 
App.  369.  An  expressman,  who  is 
duly  licensed  by  the  mayor  of  New 
York  City,  and  who  transports  for 
hire  the  goods  of  all  persons  indifTer- 
rntly,  is  a  common  carrier  and  lia- 
ble as  such  for  a  parcel  stolen  from 


one  of  his  wagons  without  the  con- 
nivance of  himself  or  driver.  Rob- 
inson V.  Cornish,  13  N.  Y.  Supp.  577, 
34  St.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    695. 

In  Indiana  express  companies  are 
made  by  statute  common  carriers. 
American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hackett,  30  Ind. 
250,  95  Am.  Dec.  691. 

48a.  Collier  v.  Langan  &  Taylor 
Storage  &  Moving  Co.,  —  Mo.  App. 
— ,  127  S.  W.  435. 

48b.  Hastings  Express  Co.  v.  City 
of  Chicago,  135  III.  App.  268. 

48c.  Johnson  Express  Co.  v.  City 
of  Chicago,  136  111.  App.  368. 

49.  Sweet  v.  Barney,  23  N.  Y.  335; 
Russell  V.  Livingston,  19  Barb.  (N. 
Y. )  346,  revd.  on  another  point,  16 
N.  Y.  515;  Sherman  v.  Wells,  23 
Barb.   (N.  Y.)   403. 

Under  South  Dakota  Rev.  Civ.  Code, 
1903,  §  1577,  providing  that  every 
one  who  offers  to  carry  persons,  prop- 
erty, or  messages   is  a  common   car- 


40  ^'HE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

botwoeu  tlio  city  of  New  York  and  Brooklyn,  and  in  carrying 
trunks  to  and  from  t.ho  passenger  depots  of  the  various  railroads, 
is  a  common  carrier,  and  performs  its  duties  under  tin;  respon- 
sibility' of  connnon  carriers.^"  Persons  carrying  on  a  transporta- 
tion business,  under  circumstances  which,  in  law,  constitute  them 
common  caiTiers,  cannot  divost  themselves  of  that  character,  nor 
secure  an  exemption  from  its  liabilities,  by  declaring  in  their 
bills  of  lading,  etc.,  that  they  are  not  to  be  deemed  common  car- 
riers. ^Vhat  they  are  is  to  be  determined  by  the  nature  of  their 
business.^^  The  fact  that  an  express  company,  in  their  receipt 
for  goods,  style  themselves  "express  forwarders,"  and  agree  to 
"forward"  the  goods,  docs  not  necessarily  give  them  the  char- 
acter of  simple  forwarders,  nor  prevent  them  from  being  treated 
as  common  carriers.^'.  An  express  company  receiving  goods  gen- 
erally for  transportation  for  hire,  though  it  has  no  means  for 
transportation  of  its  own,  employing  the  vehicles  of  other  car- 
riers for  that  purpose,  is  itself  a  common  carrier.''-^  Where  an 
express  company  uses  as  its  instrumentality  of  transportation  the 
servants  and  rolling  stock  of  a  railroad  company,  it  is  a  common 
carrier;  and  its  status  is  not  changed  by  an  agreement  with  tlie 
shipper  that  it  is  to  be  held  liable  as  a  fonvarder  only,  and  not 
as  a  carrier. 

§  10.  Railroad  companies. 

Eailroad  companies,  receiving  from  the  State  a  delegation  of 
a  portion  of  its  sovereign  power  for  the  public  good,  being  public 

rier    of    whatever    he   thus    offers    to  T5achman,  28  Ohio  St.  144.     Compare 

carry,    an    express    company    offering  Hersfield  v.  Adams,  19  Barb.   (N.  Y. ) 

to  carry  money  for  hire  is  a  common  577. 

carrier  thereof.     Piatt  v.  Lecocq,  ISO  52.  Read    v.    Spaulding,    18    N.    Y. 

Fed.  391    (C.  C.  1906).  Super.    Ct.    5    (Bosw.)    .395,    affd.    30 

50.  Richards  v.  Westcott,  15  N.  Y.  N.  Y.  630,  86  Am.  Dec.  426. 

Super.   Ct.    (2   Bosw.)     (N.  Y.)    589;  Nor    calling    themselves    a   "  trans- 

Parmalee  v.  Lowitz,  74  111.  116.  portation       company."         Mercantile 

51.  Bank    of    Kentucky    v.    Adams  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Chase,  1  E.  D.  Smith 
Exp.  Co.,  93  U.  S.   (3  Otto)    174,  23  (N.  Y.)    115. 

L.  Ed.  872;  Buckland  v.  Adams  Exp.  52a.  Christenson  v.  American  Exp. 

Co.,   97  Mass.   124,   93   Am.  Dec.   68;  Co.,  15  Minn.  270    (Gil.  208),  2  Am. 

Russell   V.   Livingston,   19   Barb.    (N.  Rep.   122. 

Y.)    346;   Place  v.  Union  Exp.  Co.,  2  52b.  Gait  v.  Adams  Exp,   Co.,  Mc- 

Hilt.    (N.  Y.)    27;   U.  S.  Erp.  Co.  t.  Arthur  &  M.   (D.  C.)    124. 


CX)lirMON  CARRIERS. 


41 


agents,  and,  in  the  place  and  stead  of  the  government,  exercis- 
ing public  duties,  being  authorized  by  law  to  make  roads  as  public 
highways,  to  lay  down  tracks,  place  cars  upon  them,  and  carry 
goods  and  passengers  for  hire,  are,  within  all  the  rules  of  the 
common  law,  eminently  common  carriers  of  goods  and  passen- 
gers, possessed  of  all  the  rights,  and  subject  to  the  liabilities  and 
duties  imposed  by  law  upon  common  carriers  of  goods  and  pas- 
sengers.^    Whether  or  not  a  particular  road  is  a  common  car- 


53.  Kirby  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  2  Mo. 
App.  369;  Bank  of  Kentucky  v. 
Adams  Exp.  Co.,  93  U.  S.  174;  Read 
V.  Spaulding,  5  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  395; 
Buckland  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  97 
Mass.  124,  93  Am.  Dec.  68. 

54.  N.  r.— Weed  v.  Saratoga  R. 
Co.,  19  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  534;  Root  v. 
Great  Western  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  524; 
Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burke,  13 
Wend.   (N.  Y.)   311,  28  Am.  Dec.  488. 

U.  S. — Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Blake,  94  U.  S.  180,  24  L.  Ed.  99; 
Atlantic  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Laird,  15  U. 
S.  App.  248,  58  Fed.  Rep.  760,  7  C. 
C.  A.  489,  railroads  are  quasi  public 
highways,  and  all  railroad  corpora- 
tions axitively  engaged  in  operating 
passenger  trains  are  subject  to  the 
liabilities  and  duties  imposed  by  law 
upon  common  carriers  of  passengers. 

Ala. — Southwestern  R.  Co.  v. 
Webb,  48  Ala.  585;  Mobile,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Prewitt,  46  Ala.  63,  7  Am.  Rep. 
586;  Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Butts,  43 
Ala.  385,  94  Am.  Dec.  604. 

Ark. — Eureka  Springs  R.  Co.  v. 
Timmona,  51  Ark.  459. 

Cat.— Dsivis  V.  Button.  78  Cal.  247; 
Contra  Costa,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moss,  23 
Cal.  323,  533. 

Colo. — Schloss  V.  Wood,  11  Colo. 
287,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  402,  note. 

Conn. — Fuller  v.  Naugatuck  R.  Co., 
21  Conn.  570. 


Fla. — Johnson  v.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  16  Fla.  623,  26  Am.  Rep.  731. 

Ga. — Falvey  v.  Georgia  R.  Co.,  76 
Ga.  597,  2  Am.  St.  Rep.  58. 

/«.— Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  U.  S. 
Rolling  Stock  Co.,  28  111.  App.  79; 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  19 
111.  578. 

Mass. — Thomas  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  10  Mete.  (Mass.)  472,  43  Am. 
Dec.  444;  Norway  Plains  Co.  v.  Bos- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Gray  (Mass.)  263, 
61  Am.  Dec.  424. 

Miss. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Thorn- 
ton, 41  Miss.  216;  Southern  Exp.  Co. 
V.  Moon,  39  Miss.  822;  Mississippi 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Kennedy,  41  Miss. 
671;   Const,  of  Mississippi,  §  184. 

2V^.  H. — Elkins  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  3  Fost.   (N.  H.)   275. 

2V.  J. — Rogers  Locomotive,  etc.. 
Works  V.  Erie  R.  Co.,  5  C.  E.  Greene 
(N.  J.)  379,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  379;  Mes- 
senger V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  36  N. 
J.  L.  407,  13  Am.  Rep.  457. 

Ohio. — Scofield  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc. 
R.  Co.,  43  Ohio  St.  571,  23  Am.  4; 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  612. 

Or. — Thompson  -  Houston  Electric 
Co.  V.  Simon,  20  Or.  60,  23  Am.  St. 
Rep.  86,  47  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  51. 

Penn.— Eagle  v.  White,  6  Whart. 
(Pa.)  505;  Sand  ford  v.  Catawissa, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Pa.  St.  378,  64  Am. 
Dec.  667. 


42  THE    LAW    OF    CAlilUERS. 

rier  in  a  certain  case  is  a  mixed  question  of  law  and  faot.^  A 
railroad  company,  operating  a  road  belonging  to  the  State,  is 
liable  as  a  carrier  for  negligence  of  State  officers  in  the  per- 
■formance  of  duties  comiectcd  with  tlie  road.  Thus  it  will 
be  liable  as  a  common  carrier,  for  an  injury  sustained  by  a  pas- 
senger from  tlie  collision  of  two  of  its  trains  passing  in  the  same 
dirLVtion,  tliough  the  motive  power  of  tlie  road  was  furnished  by 
the  State  and  under  the  control  of  the  State's  agent,  and  though 
the  accident  happened  through  the  negligence  of  the  agents  of 
the  State. ^"^  Railroad  companies  in  the  transportation  of  ani- 
mals are  liable  as  common  carriers. ^^  A  common  carrier  of 
goods  wliicli  transports  live  stock  is  as  to  the  latter  property  also 
a  common  carrier."^  Under  New  Hampshire  Pub  St.  1901  c. 
160,  §§  21-23,  providing  that  every  railroad  corporation  which 
shall  contract  for  the  transportation  of  milk  in  large  quantities 
shall  establish  a  tariff  for  its  transportation  by  the  can,  it  seems 
that  a  railroad  company  becomes  a  common  carrier  of  milk  on 
entering  into  a  contract  with  a  firm  to  furnish  it  with  special 
cars  for  the  transportation  of  milk."''  A  railroad,  which  serves 
business  houses  located  along  a  spur  track  by  delivering  to  them 
cars  of  freight  and  cars  to  be  freighted  and  shipped,  is  a  com- 
mon carrier  with  respect  to  the  use  it  makes  of  the  track,  and 

8.  C— Piedmont  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Colum-  D.  P.  C.  232;  Crouch  v.  London,  etc., 

bia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  S.  C.  353,  16  Am.  R.  Co.,  23  L.  J.   C.  P.  73,   14  C.   B. 

&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  194;  Avinger  v.  South  255,    78   E.    C.    L.    255;    Richards   v. 

C  arolina  R.  Co.,  29  S.  C.  265,  13  Am.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   18   L.  J.   C,  P. 

St.  Rep.  716,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  251,  7  C.  B.  839,  62  E.  C.  L.  839. 

524;    Dill    v.    South    Carolina    R.,    7  55.  Elkins  v.   Boston,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

Rich.  Law   (S.  C),  158,  62  Am.  Rep.  23  N.  11.  275;  Avinger  v.  South  Caro- 

407;  Ex  parte  Benson,  18  S.  C.  42.  lina  R.  Co.,  29  S.   C.  265,  35   Am.  & 

T*nn. — East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Eng.  R.  Cas.  519;  Piedmont  Mfg.  Co. 

V.  Nelson,  1  Cold.   (Tenn.)   272.  v.    Columbia,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    19    S.    C. 

Ff.— Kimball    v.    Rutland,   etc..    R.  353,  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  194. 

Co.,   26   Vt.   247,   62   Am.   Dec.   567;  56.  Ryland   v.    Peters,    5    Pa.    Law 

Jones  V.  Western  Vermont  R.  Co.,  27  G.  Rep.  126. 

Vt.   399;    Noyes  v.   Railroad,   27   Vt.  57.  Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Rainey 

110.  (Colo.),  34  Pac.  986. 

Eng. — Pegler      v.      ^Monmouthshire  57a.  Central  of  Georgia  Ry.  Co.  v. 

R.  Co.,  30  L.  J.  Exch.  249,  6  H.  &  N  Hall,  124  Ga.  322,  52  S.  E.  679. 

644;    Palmer    v.    Grand    Junction    R.  57h.  Bak^r  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.  Co., 

Co.,  4  M.  &  W.  749,  1  H.  &  H.  489,  7  74  N.  H.  100,  65  Atl.  386. 


CX3MJV10N  CARRIERS.  43 

is,  as  such,  bound  to  treat  the  houses  located  along  the  track 
without  discrimination,  and  cannot  discontinue  its  service  as  to 
one  and  continue  it  as  to  others."^  A  person  transporting  passen- 
gers for  hire  upon  a  railroad  operated  by  him  is  a  common  car- 
rier.^ A  railroad  company  operating  its  trains  over  another's  road 
at  the  time  of  an  accident  is  liable  at  common  law  as  a  common 
carrier. ^^  A  railroad  company  receiving  freight  before  the  road 
is  completed,  and  when  it  is  only  running  construction  trains, 
has  been  held  liable  as  a  common  carrier  therefor.'''^  A  railroad 
company,  which  charges  for  the  transportation  of  cattle,  but 
permits  the  shipper  to  travel  on  a  free  pass  upon  the  cars  to  take 
care  of  the  cattle,  is  a  common  carrier  for  hire,  both  as  to  pas- 
senger and  cattle."  Railroad  companies  are  common  carriers 
under  the  common  law,  and,  when  made  so  by  general  statute 
or  by  their  charters,  these  provisions  are  held  to  be  merely  decla- 
tory  of  the  existing  law,  rather  than  introducing  any  new  rule 
of  law.^^  Railroad  companies  are  common  carriers  of  passen- 
gers, but  their  liability  as  such  is  not  that  of  an  insurer  of  the 
safe  transportation  of  the  passenger;  they  are  liable,  however, 
for  the  exercise  of  the  highest  degree  of  care  and  diligence  prac- 
ticable to  protect  passengers  from  injury.^  Such  companies 
iucur  the  ordinary  responsibility  of  a  common  carrier  with  re- 
spect to  the  baggage  of  passengers,  and  all  property  accepted  by 
them  as  such  with  knowledge  of  its  character,  although  not  prop- 
erly baggage;  and  nothing  but  inevitable  accident  or  the  act  of 

57c.  W.  C.  Agee  &  Co.  v.  Louisville  63.  Thompson-Houston  Elec.  Co.  ▼. 

&  N.  R.  Co.  —  Ala.  — ,  37  So.  680.  Simon,  20  Or.  60,  47  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

58.  Davis  v.  Button,  78  Cal.  247,  Cas.  51;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
20  Pae.  545.  Messino,  1  Snecd    (Tenn.)    220;   Slioc- 

59.  Euroka  Springs  R.  Co.  v.  Tim-  maker  v.  Kingsbury,  12  Wail.  (U. 
nions,  51  Ark.  459,  11  S.  W.  690.  See  S.)  369;  Murch  v.  Concord  R.  Corp., 
One  railroad  transporting  the  cars  of  29  N.  H.  9,  61  Am.  Dec.  631,  a  rail- 
another,  §  14,  ante.  road  company  is  a  carrier  of  passeng- 

60.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  ers  only  as  to  its  passenger  trains. 
Glidewcll,  39  Ark.  487,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  It  does  not  become  such  a  carrier  as 
R.  Cas.  539.  to  its  freight  trains,  although  it  may 

61.  Maslin  v.  Baltimore  &  0.  R.  occiusionally  carry  passengers  on 
Co..  14  VV.  Va.  130.  them  as  a  matter  of  accomniodntinn, 

62.  Root  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  and  although  in  sucli  eases  it  churgos 
45  N.  Y.  524;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  the  usual  fare.  See  also.  Carriers  of 
V.  Thompson,  19  Til.  578.  passengers,  chap.  22. 


44  '^'lil^    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

the  public  enemy,  will  excuse  tlicm  for  a  loss  of,  or  injury  to, 
it.**  They  are  liable  for  goods  received  for  transportation  on 
passenger  trains,  knowing  it  not  to  be  baggage,  whether  the  freight 
wa^  paid  in  advance  or  uot;*^  but  not  for  such  goods  received  with- 
out authority  and  carried  without  compensation  by  a  conductor*' 
or  for  goods,  not  baggage,  received  as  such  without  knowledge 
of  its  character.*^  As  to  branch  lines  constructed  by  a  railroad 
company,  their  liability  as  common  carriers  depends  upon  the 
question  as  to  whether  such  branch  lines  are  actually  used  for 
purposes  of  general  transportation,  or  for  private  purposes  of 
their  o^VIl/*  As  quas'i  public  agents,  railroad  companies  are  sub- 
ject to  special  limitations  by  law  as  to  their  rates  and  charges 
for  transporting  freight  and  passengers,  and  as  to  the  manner 
in  which  tliey  discharge  their  public  duties.^^  The  courts  will 
take  judicial  notice  of  the  fact  that  a  railroad  company  is  a 
common  earner  where  a  statute  declares  it  to  be  such,  and  allega- 
tion and  proof  of  such  fact  is  uunecessaryj'*  Railroad  com- 
panies are  common  carriers  engaged  in  public  employment  affect- 
ing the  public  interest,  and  are  subject  to  legislative  control  as 
to  charges  like  any  natural  person  who  is  a  common  carrier.'"* 

64.  Burnell  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  stock  of  jewelry  contained  in  a  trunk 
Co.,  45  N.  Y.  184;  Merrill  v.  Grin-  present<>d  to  the  baggage  agent  as  his 
nell,  30  N.  Y.  594;  Camden,  etc.,  R.  personal  baggage,  unless  the  loss  oc- 
Co.  V.  Burke,  13  Wend.   (N.  Y.)    611,  curred  through  gross  negligence. 

28  Am.  Dec.  488;    HoUister  v.  Now-  68.  Schloss  v.  Wood,  11  Colo.  287, 

len,  19  Wend.    (N.  Y.)    234;    Cole  v.  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  492;  Avinger 

Goodwin,    19    Wend.     (N.    Y.)     251;  v.   South   Carolina   R.    Co.,   29    S.    C. 

Powell  V.  Myers,  26  Wend.    (N.   Y.)  265,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  716,  35  Am.  & 

591.      See    also,    Carriers    of    passen-  Eng.  R.  Cas.  526. 

gers,  chap.  22.  69.  Scofield  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 

65.  Butler  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  Co.,  43  Ohio  St.  571,  54  Am.  Rep. 
3  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.),  571;  Lang-  846,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  612;  Nor- 
worthy  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  way  Plains  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
E.  D.  Smith   (N.  Y.),  195.  1  Gray  (Mass.)  263,  61  Am.  Dec.  423. 

66.  Elkins  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70.  Caldwell  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 
23  N.  H.  275.  Co.,  89  Ga.  550;   Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

67.  Humphreys  v.  Perry,  148  U.  S.  v.  Cahill,  8  Colo.  App.  158. 

627,  54  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  29,  7  Am.  70a.  Laurel    Fork,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

R.    &    Corp.    Rep.    685,    13    Sup.    Ct.  West  Virginia  Transp.  Co.,  25  W.  Va. 

711,  37  L.  Ed.  587,  47  Alb.  L.  J.  386,  324;    West    Virginia   Transp.    Co.   v. 

wherein  it  was  held  that  a  passenger  Sweetzer,  25  W.  Va.  434. 
could  not  recover  for  the  loss  of  a 


CXDMMON  CARRIERS. 


45 


§  11.  Receivers  and  assignees  of  railroad  company  operating  the 
road. 

The  receiver  and  assignee  in  bankruptcy  of  a  railroad  corpora- 
tion, who  operates  the  road  under  the  order  of  the  court,  is  not 
personally  liable  for  an  injury  caused  by  the  negligence  of  a  ser- 
vant employed  by  him,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  that  he  was 
negligent  in  the  selection  of  servants,  or  that  he  held  himself  out 
as  operating  the  road  otherwise  than  as  receiver.^^  Where  such 
an  officer  displaces  the  directors  or  other  body  who  by  its  charter 
are  authorized  to  manage  its  affairs,  and,  under  the  direction  of 
the  court  by  which  he  is  appointed,  has  the  sole  control  of  its  prop- 
erty and  effects,  and,  when  authorized  so  to  do,  the  executive 
power  to  use  its  franchises,  he  is  responsible  for  his  conduct  in  all 
these  things  to  the  court  appointing  him.  In  such  a  case  the  rem- 
edy for  injuries  resulting  from  his  negligence,  or  the  negligence 
of  those  operating  a  railroad  under  him,  would  be  by  application 
to  the  same  tribunal,  which  might  itself  dispose  of  the  matter  by 
administering  justice  between  the  parties,  or  allowing  the  party 
aggrieved  to  bring  his  suit  at  law  for  the  alleged  injury.''^    Dam- 

71.  Cardot  v.  Barney,  63  N.  Y.  281,  operate  the  road.     In  the  employment 

20   Am.    Rep.    533;    Murphy   v.    Hoi-  of    subordinates,    as    well    as    in    the 

brook,  20  Ohio  St.  137;  Potter  v.  Bun-  other  acts  connected  with  the  opera- 

neli,   20  Ohio   St.   150;    Henderson  v.  tion   of  the   road,   he   acted   officially 

Walker,  55  Ga.  481.  and  as  the  representative  of,  and  by 

In  Cardot  v.  Barney,  supra,  the  orders  from  the  court,  and  was  only 
court  says:  "  The  defendant  was  not  held  to  diligence  and  good  faith  in  tlie 
individually  the  owner,  or  possessed  performance  of  any  act  which  he  was 
of  the  property;  he  had  neither  a  authorized  to  do.  There  is  no  evi- 
gencral  or  special  property  in  the  road  donee  that  he  at  any  time  assumed 
or  its  earnings.  The  property  was  to  act  other  than  as  receiver  or  as- 
in  the  court  for  management  and  ad-  signee,  or  held  himself  out  as  a  car- 
ministration;  and  the  defendant  was  rier  of  passengers,  save  as  an  officer 
an  officer  of  the  court,  obeying  its  or-  of  the  court.  I  know  of  no  principle 
ders  and  carrying  out  its  directions.  upon  which  a  receiver  or  other  of- 
His  relation  to  the  road  and  its  oper-  ficer  of  a  court,  having  no  interest 
ation  was  entirely  official,  and  he  had  in  the  prosecution  of  the  work  and 
no  interest  in  or  control  over  the  deriving  no  profit  from  it,  should  be 
earnings,  and  was  removable  at  the  an3weral>le  except  for  his  own  acts 
pleasure   of   the   court.      He   was   ex-  and  neglects." 

pres.sly     authorized     to     employ     all  72.  Kain  v.   Smith,   80  N.  Y.  468; 

necessary  assistants  and  lalmrers  and  Metz   v.   Buffalo,   Corry  k  P.   P.   Co. 


40  THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

agos  for  injury  to  the  person,  whether  passenger  or  employe,  for 
loss  of  goods  in  the  eourse  of  transportation,  or  otherwise,  would 
be  ehargeable  upon,  and  payable  out  of  the  fund  in  court,  the  sanio 
as  other  expenses  of  administration."  But  where  a  receiver  is  in 
possession  of  and  operating  a  leased  road  not  as  an  officer  of  any 
court  or  by  its  authority,  but  by  virtue  of  a  contract  simply  per- 
mitted by  the  court,  he  is  not  protected  by  being  a  receiver,  but 
is  liable  like  an  individual  for  injuries  resulting  from  his  negli- 
gence, or  the  negligence  of  his  employes  in  the  operation  of  the 
roadJ*  And,  while  a  court  of  equity  will  protect  persons  acting 
under  its  process  or  authority,  in  the  execution  of  a  decree  or  de- 
cretal order,  against  suits  at  law,  and  will  compel  parties  to  apply 
to  that  court  for  relief,  this  protection  is  accorded  by  that  court 
to  its  officers  only  on  their  owti  application,  and  is  granted  in  the 
exercise  of  the  court's  discretion,  and  it  is  presumed  that  it  would 
be  granted  in  any  necessary  or  proper  case;  waving  this  right  to 
invoke  the  aid  of  the  court,  they  are  amenable  in  the  common  law 
courts  to  actions  for  negligence  as  common  carriers.^^  And  the 
mere  fact  that  persons  are  acting  as  receivers,  under  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  court  of  equity,  cannot  be  recognized  as  a  defense  to  a 
suit  at  law  for  a  breach  of  any  obligation  or  duty  which  was  fairly 
and  voluntarily  assumed  by  them  in  matters  of  business  conducted 
or  carried  on  by  them  while  acting  as  such  receivers.^®     Upon 

58  N.  Y.  61,  17  Am.  Rep.  201;  Morse  enthal    v.    Braincrd,    38    Vt.   409,    91 

V.    Brainerd,    41    Vt.    551;    Klein    v.  Am.    Dec.    350;    Paige    v.    Smith,    99 

Jewett,   26  N.   J.   Eq.   474;    Little   v.  Mass.   395;    Murphy   v.   Holbrook,  20 

Dusenberry,  46  N.  J.  L.  614,  50  Am.  Ohio  St.  137. 

Rep.  445,  31  Alb.  L.  J.  490.    See  also,  75.  Blumenthal  v.  Brainerd,  38  Vt. 

Villa<?e  of  Carterville  V.  Cook,  129  111.  402,    91    Am.    Dec.     350;    Newell   v. 

152,  16  Am.  St.  Rep.  248,  4  L.  R.  A.  Smith,   49   Vt.   260;    Paige  v.   Smith, 

721;   Rogers  v.  Wendell,  54  Hun    (N.  99  Mass.  395;   Nichols  v.  Smith,  115 

Y.),  543.  Mass.  332;  Ballou  v.  Farnum,  9  Allen 

73.  Klein  v.  Jewett,  supra;  Cow-  (Mass.)  47;  Barter  v.  Wheeler,  49 
drey  v.  G.  H.  &  H.  R.  Co.,  93  U.  S.  N.  H.  9,  6  Am.  Rep.  434;  Lamphear 
352.  V.  Buckingham,  33  Conn.  237. 

74.  Kain  v.  Smith,  80  N.  Y.  4C3,  76.  Blumenthal  v.  Brainerd,  38  Vt. 
citing  Rogers  v.  Wheeler,  43  N.  Y.  403,  91  Am.  Dec.  350,  in  which  the 
598;  Sprague  v.  Smith,  29  Vt.  421,  court  says:  "The  assumption  by  tlie 
70  Am.  Dec.  424;  Barter  v.  Wheeler,  defendants  of  the  peculiar  dutii  s  and 
49  N.  H.  9,   6  Am.   Rep.  434;    Blum-  extraordinary   responsibilities   arisir.,* 


C!OMMON  CARRIERS.  47 

principle  and  authority,  it  has  been  held,  a  receiver,  operating  a 
railroad  under  the  order  of  a  court  of  equity,  stands  in  respect  to 
duty  and  liability,  just  where  the  corporation  would,  were  it  oper- 
ating the  road,  and  the  question  whether  or  not  the  receiver  is 
liable  for  negligence  must  be  tested  by  the  same  rules  that  would 
be  applied  if  the  corporation  was  the  actual  party  defendant  be- 
fore the  court."  A  receiver  of  a  railroad,  operating  the  same,  is 
a  common  carrier,  within  the  Hours  of  Labor  Law."* 

§  12.  Trustees  of  mortgage  bonds  of  railroad  company. 

The  trustees  of  a  mortgage,  given  to  secure  the  bonds  of  a  rail- 
road company,  who  have  possession  and  control  of  and  actually 
operate  the  road  for  the  benefit  of  their  bondholders,  are  personally 
liable  as  common  carriers  of  goods  for  the  loss  of  goods  transported 
over  the  road  under  their  management.''^  The  trustees  of  an  in- 
solvent railroad  company  who  operate  the  road  are  liable  for  loss 
of  goods  as  common  carriers.''*  The  cases  cited  proceeded  upon  the 
ground  that  the  defendants  were  the  owners  of  the  roads,  and  were 
bound  personally  by  their  contracts;  and  that  the  fact  was  unim- 
portant that  they  were  trustees  and  acted  in  a  representative 
capacity.  The  actions  were  upon  contracts  made  by  the  defend- 
ants, and,  as  in  the  case  of  executors  and  administrators,*"  they 
were  held  liable  to  answer  for  them.  The  legal  title  to  the  road 
was  in  the  defendants,  and  they  operated  them  as  proprietors,  and 

from  the  relation  of  common  carriers  road   as   receivers  under   an   appoint- 

is  not  to  be  considered  as  necessarily,  ment  of  the  Court  of  Chancery."    See 

if  at  all,  incompatible  with  any  duty  also,  cases  cited  under  last  preceding 

or  responsibility   imposed   upon  them  note. 

as  receivers.     The  plaintiff's  evidence  77.  Klein  v.  Jewctt,  26  N.  J.   Eq. 

tended   to   show   that   the   defendants  474. 

were  moLnn^ln^  and  controlling  a  long  77a.  United  States  v.  Ramsey,  197 

line   of   railroad,   and   conrlucted   and  Fed.  444. 

held   themselves  out  as  common  car-  78.  Rogers  v.  Wheeler,  2  Lans.   (N. 

riers  over  that  line.     If  in  fact  they  Y.)   486,  affd.  43  N.  Y.  598;  Sprague 

were  common  carriers  over  that  line  v.    Smith,   29   Vt.   421,   70  Am.   Dec. 

of   railrond,   we   think   that   it   is  no  424;   Barter  v.  Wheeler,  49  N.  H.  9, 

defense    to    an    action    at   law    for   a  6  Am.  Rep.  434. 

breach   of  a  duty   or  obligation   aris-  79.  Faulkner   v.     ITart,    44    N.    Y. 

ing  out  of  businosH  intrusted  to  them  Suppr.  ft.   171,  rovd.  82  N.  Y.  413,  on 

in  that  relation,  that  thcv  were  run-  other  grounds. 

ning  and  managing  the   lino  of  rail-  80.  Ferrin  v.  Myrick,  41  N.  Y.  315. 


^g  THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

their  liability  legitimately  resulted  from  their  proprietorship, 
although  the  title  was  in  trust  for  others.  They  were  in  no  sense 
receivers  or  olHeers  of  the  court.  They  had  assumed  to  operate  the 
roads,  and  had  made  contracts  with  the  public  in  the  course  of  that 
business,  and  there  was  no  principle  or  policy  that  would  shield 
them  from  liability  if  they  failed  to  perform  their  engagements." 
Likewise  such  trustees  and  mortgagees  in  trust  for  the  bondholders, 
in  possession  of  and  operating  the  roads  as  such  trustees  and  mort- 
gatees,  are  liable  for  injuries  sustained  by  reason  of  the  negligence 
of  persons  employed  by  them.  They  are  regarded  as  the  OAvners 
of  the  road,  and  the  real  principals  receiving  the  earnings,  and 
having  the  benefit  of  the  services  of  the  employes.  The  employes 
are  the  servants  of  the  defendants  operating  the  roads  in  virtue  of 
the  title  and  possession  acquired  under  their  mortgages;  and 
whether  a  road  is  operated  by  mortgagees  in  possession,  trustees, 
lessees  or  intruders,  is  not  material,  so  long  as  they  assume  to  oper- 
ate the  road  and  take  the  earnings  either  for  themselves  or  those 
they  represent.^^  Where  certain  railroad  companies  carried  on 
the  business  of  common  carriers  of  goods  for  hire,  mider  the  name 
of  an  association,  and  thereby  acquired  great  gains  and  profits,  it 
was  held  that  they  were  liable  as  trustees  to  one  who  had  obtained 
a  judgment  against  the  association  for  breach  of  duty  in  trans- 
porting his  goods.". 

§  13.  Street  railroad  companies. 

Street  railroad  companies  are  common  carriers,  and  liable,  like 

81.  See  cases  cited,  note  78.  that  it  could  "  see  no  reason  why  the 

82.  Ballou  V.  Farnum,  9  Allen  defendants  were  not  liable  to  the 
(Mass.),  47;  Lamphear  v.  Bucking-  same  extent  as  the  company  would 
ham,  33  Conn.  237;  Sprague  v.  have  been,  and  upon  similar  grounds 
Smith,  29  Vt.  421,  70  Am.  Dec.  424,  to  those  upon  which  lessees,  or  any 
■wherein  the  question  was,  whether  the  others  exercising  the  franchises  of 
defendants  were  personally  liable  the  company,  for  the  time,  must  be; 
upon  the  contracts  made  by  the  op-  that  is,  that  they  are  the  ostensible 
eratives  on  the  road,  or  for  their  parties,  who  appear  to  the  public  to 
negligence  or  misconduct,  while  they  be  exercising  the  franchise  of  the 
continued  to  operate  the  road,  and  re-  company." 

ceived   freight   and   pay   for   carrying  83.  Clarkson  v.  Erie  &  North  Shora 

passengers     for     the     benefit    of    the      Dispatch,  6  111.  App.  284. 
cestuis  que  trust,  and  the  court  held 


(X)iIMON  CARRIERS. 


49 


other  common  carriers,  upon  common  law  principles.  They  aro 
always  common  carriers  of  passengers  for  hire,  with  rights,  duties, 
and  liabilities  similar  to  those  of  general  railroad  companies.  As 
such,  they  are  required  to  exercise  the  highest  degree  of  care,  skill, 
diligence,  and  foresight  consistent  with  their  business  for  the 
safety  of  their  patrons,  and  are  liable  for  the  slightest  negligence 
causing  injury  or  loss  of  life  to  their  passengers.**.  They  may  be 
common  carriers  of  goods,  also,  when  expressly  authorized  by 
statute,  or  when  organized  under  general  laws  not  limiting  their 


84.  Lincoln  Traction  Co.  v.  Heller, 
72  Neb.  127,  3  St.  Ry.  Rep.  582, 
100  N.  W.  197,  102  N.  W.  262; 
Spellman  v.  Lincoln  Rap.  Trans.  Co., 
36  Xeb.  890,  55  N.  W.  270,  20  L.  R. 
A.  316;  Lincoln  St.  R.  Co.  v.  McClel- 
lan,  54  Neb.  672,  74  N.  W.  1074;  To- 
peka  City  R.  Co,  v.  Higgs,  33  Kan. 
375;  Meier  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 
64  Pa.  St.  225;  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Horst,  93  U.  S.  291,  23  L.  Ed. 
898,  3  Am.  Rep.  581;  Dean  v.  Chi- 
cago G.  R.  Co.,  64  111.  App.  165,  1 
Chic.  L.  J.  Wkly.  213,  28  Chic.  Leg. 
N.  289;  Citizens  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Merl, 
134  Ind.  609,  33  N.  E.  1014;  East 
Omaha  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Godola,  6  Am. 
Electl.  Cas.  424,  50  Neb.  906,  70  N. 
W.  491,  7  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S. 
300;  Thompson-Houston  Elec.  Co.  v. 
Simon,  20  Oreg.  60,  47  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  51;  Citizens  St.  R.  Co.  v. 
Twiname,  111  Ind.  587;  Holly  v.  At- 
lanta St.  R.  Co.,  61  Ga.  215,  7  Rep. 
360.  See  Nellis'  St.  Rd.  Acct.  Law, 
pp.  1,  12,  13  and  notes;  Nellis  on 
Street  Railways,   §   6  and  notes. 

Railway  companies  are  bound  to 
use  reasonable  care  and  diligence  in 
the  conveyance  of  passengers;  but 
they  arc  not  common  carriers  of 
pasf^engers,  and  are  not  under  obli- 
gation to  carry  safely.  East  Indian 
Railway  v.  Kalidas  Mukerjee,  70   L. 


J.  P.  C.  396,  63  App.  Cas.  396,  84  L. 
T.  210. 

The  highest  degree  of  care  and  dili- 
gence is  due  to  a  passenger  who  has 
paid  for  a  continuous  passage,  while 
he  remains  in  or  within  the  sphere 
of  a  transfer  car  supplied  by  the 
company  for  making  transfers  from 
one  line  to  another.  Citizens  St.  R. 
Co.  V.  Merl,  134  Ind.  609,  33  N.  E. 
1014. 

The  fact  that  a  street  railway  is 
being  operated  by  a  construction 
company,  under  its  contract  to  oper- 
ate the  road  satisfactorily  for  ten 
days  before  delivery  to  the  street 
railway  company,  is  not  a  defense  in 
an  action  against  the  latter  for  per- 
sonal injury,  received  by  a  passenger 
upon  a  car  in  use  for  the  purposes 
of  traffic.  Cogswell  v.  West  St.  &  N. 
E.  Elec.  R.  Co.,  5  Wash.  46,  52  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  500,  7  Am.  R.  &  Corp. 
Rep.  48,  31  Pac.  411. 

A  street  railway  company  assumes 
the  relation  of  a  common  carrier  by 
undertaking  the  transportation  of 
passengers  for  hire,  although  its  road 
may  be  constructed  over  private  prop- 
erty. East  Omaha  St.  R.  Co.  v. 
Godola,  6  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  424,  50 
Neb.  906,  70  N.  W.  491,  7  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  N.  S.  300. 


50  TIIH    LAW    OF    OARRIKRS. 

powoi-s.  or,  uiulor  sjioi-ial  oiri'umstauces,  Mhcn  organized  only  for 
the  purpose  of  earryiug  passcugers.*^ 

§  14.  One  railroad  transporting  cars  of  another. — Terminal  rail- 
roads. 
A  terminal  railroad  company  owning  no  cars  of  its  own  and 
transporting  only  the  railroad  cars  of  other  companies  is  a  common 
carrier  of  personal  property.*^*  A  stockyards  company  owning 
stockyards  and  doing  what  is  known  as  a  terminal  business,  owning 
switch  tracks  encircling  the  stockyards,  and  connecting  there- 
with, and  connecting  with  the  trnnk  line  railroads,  so  that 
all  cars  of  live  stock  in  aiid  out  from  the  stockyards  must  pass  over 
its  lines  or  switches,  over  which  it  alone  moves  the  cars  with  its 
own  locomotives  and  crews,  which  issues  no  bills  of  lading,  and 
receives  no  part  of  the  freight  charges  paid  to  the  trunk  line  com- 
panies, but  receives  $1  for  each  car  moved  from  the  connection  of 
the  trunk  lines  to  the  stockyards  or  the  packing  houses,  is  a  railroad 
company  and  a  common  carrier  for  hire.*^''  A  railroad  company 
that  contracts  to  furnish  the  motive  power  to  draw  the  passenger  and 
freight  cars  of  another  with  their  contents  over  its  road,  assumes 
the  liabilities  of  a  common  carrier  in  respect  thereto,  and  is  liable 
as  a  common  carrier  for  loss  or  injury  to  certain  cars  and  their 

85.  Thompson-Houston  Elec.  Ck).  v.  to  show,  and,  in  the  absence  of  any- 

Simon,  20  Oreg.  60,  47  Am.  &  Eng.  thing  to  control  or  contradict  it,  suf- 

R.  Cas.  51,  25  Pac.  147;  Levi  v.  Lynn,  ficient  evidence  to  warrant  a  jury  in 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Allen  (Mass.),  300,  87  finding,   that  the   defendants  had   as- 

Am.  Dec.  713.     In  the  case  last  cited,  sumed  the  business  of  common  carri- 

in    an    action    to     recover     damages  ers  of  merchandise  on  their  cars.    See 

against  a  street  railway  company  for  Nellis'  St.  Rd.  Acct.  Law,  pp.  1,  12, 

the  loss  of  merchandise  delivered  to  13  and  notes.     See  also,  Spellman  v. 

one  of  its  conductors  for  transporta-  Lincoln  Rap.  Trans.  Co.,  supra;  Citi- 

tion   on   the   platform   of   a   car,   for  zens  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Twiname,  supra. 

which  money  was  paid  by  the  owner  85a.  United    States    v.    Sioux    City 

to    the    conductor,    the    testimony    of  Stock   Yards   Co.,    162    Fed.    (C.    C.) 

two  other  persons  that  they  had  paid  556,  judg.  affd.  167  Fed.    (C.  C.  A.) 

money  at  other  times  to  the  defend-  126   (Iowa  1908). 

ant's   conductors  for  the  like  trans-  85b.  United    States    v.    St.    Joseph 

portation     of   merchandise,   with   the  Stockyards  Co.,  181  Fed.  625    (D.  C. 

knowledge    of    the    superintendent   of  Mo.  1909). 
the  road,  was  held  competent  evidence 


COMMON  CARRIERS. 


51 


contents,  even  though  destroyed  by  fire  or  caused  by  a  defect  in 
the  track  of  the  transporting  company,  arising  from  a  cause  beyond 
its  cont^ol.^^  So,  where  a  railroad  company  is  bound  by  statute 
to  haul  the  cars  of  another  company,  and,  having  received  a  car 
to  be  hauled  to  a  certain  point,  it,  without  authority,  hauls  it  to 
another  point,  where  it  is  destroyed  by  fire,  it  incurs  the  liability 
of  a  common  carrier.^^  If  a  railroad  company  takes  a  car  for 
transportation  over  their  road,  and,  though  it  remains  on  its  own 
tracks,  take  sole  possession  and  care  of  it,  they  are  responsible  as 
common  carriers/*    It  has  been  held  that  when  the  railroad  com- 


86.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Fed.  317,  23  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  718;  Hannibal,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Swift,  79  U.  S.  (12  Wall.) 
262,  20  L.  Ed.  423;  East  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
123  111.  594,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
522,  revg.  24  111.  App.  279;  Peoria, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  United  States  Rolling 
Stock  Co.,  136  111.  643,  29  Am.  St. 
Rep.  348,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  81, 
revg.  28  111.  App.  79;  Austin  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc..  Packet  Co.,  15  Mo.  App. 
197.  But  if  destroyed  by  fire  after 
delivery  to  the  consignee,  or  after 
they  have  been  tendered  to  him,  the 
company  is  not  liable  if  not  in  fault. 
In  the  latter  case  its  duties  are  only 
those  of  warehousemen.  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
supra;  Mallory  v.  Tioga,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
39  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  488,  affd.  32  How. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  616;  Vermont,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  14  Allen 
(Mass.),  460,  92  Am.  Dec.  785;  but 
where  tlic  contract  provided  that  the 
company  owning  the  cars  agreed  to 
save  the  transporting  company  harm- 
less from  all  claims  and  expenses 
arising  from  any  injury  to  passen- 
gers, or  loss  or  damage  of  baggage, 
goods,  and  freight,  while  in  trani^it 
over  their  road  unless  occasioned  by 
the     negligence    or     default     of     the 


transporting  company,  in  which  case 
the  loss  or  damage  should  be  borne 
by  the  latter,  it  was  held  that  the 
latter,  although  liable  as  common 
carriers,  were  not  liable  on  the  con- 
tract. 

Hauling  engines. — A  railroad  com- 
pany which  agrees  for  a  stipulated 
compensation  to  draw  another  com- 
pany's engines  over  its  line,  and  fur- 
nishes an  employe  to  act  as  pilot,  he 
having  the  exclusive  control  of  the 
movement  of  the  engines,  is  liable  for 
their  destruction  in  a  collision  caused 
by  his  negligence  in  moving  them,  al- 
though the  company  owning  them 
furnishes  an  engineer  and  fireman 
to  operate  them  under  the  pilot's  di- 
rection. Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150  111.  502,  37 
N.  E.  915. 

87.  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  111.  135,  50  Am.  Rep. 
605,   18  Am.  &  Eng.   R.  Cas.  506. 

88.  New  Jersey  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.,  27  N.  J.  L.  (3  Dutch.) 
100. 

89.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Whittle,  27  Ga.  535,  73  Am.  Dec. 
741;  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunbar,  20 
111.  623.  See  also,  Kimball  v.  Rut- 
land, etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Vt.  247,  63  Am. 
Dec.   567. 


52 


THE    LAW    OF    CARPUERS. 


panv  merely  furnislioa  the  motive  power  and  tbo  roadbed,  and 
contracts  to  haul  the  ears  of  the  shipper,  it  is  not  liable  as  a 
coninion  carrier  of  the  goods  in  such  cars,  but  that  it  is  liable  only 
for  losses  resulting  from  its  negligence/'  But  it  is  held  that  this 
rule  should  prevail  only  when  it  appears  that  all  control  over  the 
goods  was  taken  from  the  carrier  liud  contided  to  agents  of  tho 
shipper.'" 

§  15.  Transportation  or  dispatch  companies. 

A  transportation  company  not  owning  or  controlling  any  moans 
of  conveyance  itself,  but  engaging  on  its  OAvn  behalf  in  the  business 
of  transporting  goods  through  the  agency  and  over  the  lines  of 
other  carriers  of  its  o^vn  selection  and  employment,  is  a  common 
carrier,  and  subject  to  all  the  responsibilities  attaching  to  that 
character.'^  The  duties  which  it  undertakes  and  wliich  it  holds 
itself  out  to  the  public  as  willing  to  undertake  and  perform  give 
it  that  character.  In  many  cases  it  has  been  expressly  adjudged 
to  be  a  common  carrier,  and  in  others  such  has  been  assumed  to 
be  its  character  without  a  discussion  of  the  question.'^     Such  a 


90.  Mallory  v.  Tioga  R.  Co.,  39 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  488;  New  Jersey,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  27  N. 
J.  L.  100,  wherein  it  was  said:  "The 
point  was  incidentally  made  .  .  . 
that  this  was  not  a  case  of  carrying 
at  all,  but  was  analogous  to  that  of 
towing  a  boat  upon  a  water  naviga- 
tion, where  the  party  supplying  the 
motive  power  does  not  receive  the 
boat  into  his  custody  or  exercise  any 
control  over  it  other  than  such  as  re- 
sults from  the  act  of  towing;  in 
which  case  it  has  been  held  that  the 
common  law  liability  of  a  carrier 
does  not  attach.  Caton  v.  Rumney, 
13  Wend.  (N.  Y.)387.  This  doctrine 
has  been  denied  or  doubted  in  Smith 
V.  Pierce,  1  La.  349.  But  however 
the  rule  may  be  in  the  cases  of  tow- 
ing boats  under  these  circumstances, 
the    analog}'    does    not   hold    good    in 


the  present  case.  Here  the  defend- 
ants received  the  car  to  take  over 
their  road  and  had  exclusive  charge 
of  it,  though  they  took  it  on  its  own 
tracks." 

91.  ^rerchants  Dispatch  Transp. 
Co.  V.  Bloch,  86  Tenn.  392,  6  Am.  St. 
Rep.  847,  6  S.  W.  881;  Merchants 
Despatch,  ete.,  Co.,  v,  Comforth,  3 
Colo.  280,  25  Am.  Rep.  757; 
Mercantile  Mut.  Marine  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Chase,  1  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.),  115,  a 
company  doing  business  under  the 
name  of  a  "  transportation  company  " 
is  to  be  held  liable  as  a  common  car- 
rier, if  it  in  fact  transacts  business 
as  such. 

92.  Robinson  v.  Merchants  De- 
spatch Transp.  Co.,  45  Iowa  470; 
Stewart  v.  Merchants  Dospatch 
Transp.  Co..  47  Iowa  229,  29  Am. 
Rep.    476;    Wilde   v.    Merchants    De- 


COMMON  CARRIERS.  53 

company  cannot  stipulate  for  exemption  from  liability  for  dam- 
ages to  goods  caused  by  the  default  of  its  agents,  the  sub-carriers.'' 

§  16.  Express  freight  lines. 

An  express  freight  company  which  received  goods  for  trans- 
portation but  unreasonably  delayed  shipping  them,  and  mean- 
while they  were  injured  by  an  extraordinary  flood,  was  held  liable 
as  a  common  carrier  for  the  loss  occasioned.  A  common  carrier, 
in  order  to  claim  exemption  from  liability  for  damage  done  to 
goods  in  his  hands  in  course  of  transportation,  though  injured  by 
what  is  deemed  the  act  of  God,  must  be  without  fault  himself ;  his 
act  or  neglect  must  not  concur  and  contribute  to  the  injury.  If 
he  departs  from  the  line  of  duty  and  violates  his  contract,  and 
while  thus  in  fault,  and  in  consequence  of  the  fault,  the  goods  are 
injured  by  the  act  of  God,  which  would  not  otherwise  have  caused 
the  injury,  he  is  not  protected.'*. 

§  17.  Owners  of  canal  boats. 

Owners  of  canal  boats,  employed  in  the  transportation  of  mer- 
chandise or  other  property,  for  hire,  are  common  carriers  when 
they  hold  themselves  out  as  willing  to  carry  for  all  persons  in- 
dilferently.''    But  the  owner  of  a  canal  boat,  generally  used  only 

Bpatch  Transp.  Co.,  47  Iowa,  247,  29  Co.,   13   Gray    (Mass.),   481,   74   Am. 

Am.    Rep.     479;    Bancroft     v.     Mer-  Dec.  645. 

chants  Despatch  Transp.  Co.,  47  Iowa,  95.  Arnold  v.  Halenbake,   5   Wend. 

262,  29  Am.  Rep.  482;  Merchants  De-  (N.    Y.)    33;    Parsons    v.   Hardy,    14 

Bpatch  Transp.  Co.  v.  Bolles,   80  111.  Wend.   (N.  Y.)  215,  28  Am.  Dec.  521; 

473.  DeMott   v.    Laraway,    14   Wend.    (N. 

93.  Merchants  Despatch  Transp.  Y.)  225,  28  Am.  Dec.  523;  Bowman 
Co.  V.  Bloch,  86  Tenn.  392,  6  Am.  St  v.  Teall,  23  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  306,  35 
Rep.  847,  6  S.  W.  881.  Am.  Dec.  562;   Fuller  v.  Bradley,  25 

94.  Read  v.  Spaulding,  5  Bosw.  Pa.  St.  120;  Humphrey  v.  Read,  6 
(N.  Y.)  395,  afTd.  30  N.  Y.  630.  See  Whart.  (Pa.)  435;  Spencer  v.  Dag- 
also,  Michaels  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  gett,  2  Vt.  92;  Harrington  v.  Lyles, 
Co.,  30  N.  Y.  564;  Whitworth  v.  2  Nott  &  M.  (S.  C.)  88;  Hyde  v. 
Erie  Ry.  Co.,  87  N.  Y.  419;  Reed  v.  Trent  Nav.  Co.,  5  T.  R.  389;  Trent 
United  States  Express  Co.,  48  N.  Y.  Nav.  Co.  v.  Wood.  3  Esp.  N.  P.  127; 
470;  Beach  v.  Paritan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Williams  v.  Branson,  5  N.  C.  (1 
37  N.  Y.  468.  Compare  Morrison  v.  Murph.)  417,  4  Am.  Dec.  562,  freight- 
Davis,  20  Pa.  St.  171,  57  Am.  Dec.  ers  on  navigable  rivers  are  common 
695;    Denny   v.   New   York    Cent.    R.  carriers. 


5i 


THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 


in  transporting  Lis  own  menlunulise,  applying  to  a  common 
carrier,  who  has  knowledge  of  the  facts,  and  receiving  a  load  of 
freight  which  he  enters  into  a  contract  to  transport  for  an  agreed 
price,  does  not  thereby  become  liable  for  it  as  a  common  carrier. 
It  is  the  business  of  carrying  goods  for  others,  not  a  single  act, 
known  to  the  consignor  to  be  outside  of  the  usual  employment, 
which  fixes  the  liability  of  a  common  carrier.*®  A  canal  boat 
hired  at  a  daily  rate  for  use  in  storing  grain  about  the  harbor,  to 
be  subject  wholly  to  the  control  of  the  hirer  in  respect  to  loading, 
unloading,  navigation,  and  delivery  of  cargo,  is  not  a  carrier  or 
a  warehouse,  and  is  not  liable  for  a  shortage  in  cargo  by  a  sale 
thereof  by  a  man  whose  services  in  taking  care  of  the  boat  were 
included  in  its  hire,  but  who,  though  called  "  captain,"  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  cargo  or  navigation.*^ 

§  18.  Owners  of  tow  boats  towing  water  craft  on  the  Mississippi. 

The  courts  of  Louisiana  have  held  that  a  towboat  used  in  tow- 
in*'  barges  or  other  water  craft,  which  are  loaded  with  freight, 
from  one  point  to  another  on  the  Mississippi  River,  is  a  common 
carrier.  Persons  owning  such  a  tow  boat,  who  undertake  to  tow 
a  barge,  loaded  with  freight  or  merchandise,  from  one  given  point 
to  another,  first  giving  a  bill  of  lading  for  the  transportation  of 
the  cargo  on  board  of  the  barge,  are  liable  for  the  delivery  of  the 
cargo  at  the  port  of  destination,  the  same  as  if  it  had  been  placed, 
on  board  the  tow  boat  herself.*^  Owners  of  tow  boats  have  also 
been  held  to  be  common  carriers  in  certain  other  jurisdictions. 


9» 


96.  Fish   V.    Clark,   49   N.   Y.    122,  N,   Y.),    52    Fed.   Rep.    159,   affd.    56 

afTg.  2  Lans.  176;  Flautt  v.  La-shley,  Fed.  Rep.  605. 

36  La.  Ann.  106,  wherein  it  was  held  98.  Bussoy    &    Co.    v.    Mississippi 

that  a  boat  used  by   its  owners  for  VaL  Transp.  Co.,  24  La.  Ann,  165,  13 

their    own    purposes    and    those    of  Am.  Rep.  120;   Clapp  v.  Stanton,  20 

others  who  agree  to  pay  certain  rates  La.  Ann.  495;  Smith  v.  Pierce,  1  La. 

for  the  transportation  of  their  goods  350.     See  also,  Vanderslice  v.  Tlie  Su- 

from  one  point  to  another,  and  which  perior,  4  Pa.  L.  J.  Rep.  388,  Fed.  Cas. 

is  not  shown  to  have  been  held  out  aa  No.  16,843. 

a  common  carrier,  cannot  be  declared  99.  White  v.  Tug  Mary  Ann,  6  Cal. 

to  be  sruch  at  the  instance  of  one  of  462,    65    Am.    Dec.    523;    Walston    v. 

the  afrrepinjj  parties.     See  also.  Beck-  Myers,  5  Jones  L.   (N.  C.)   172;  Ash- 

with  V.  Frisbie,  32  Vt.  559.  more  v.  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  Co.,  28  N. 

97.  The  Daniel  Burns   (D.  C  S.  D.  J.   L.   180. 


COMMON  CARRIERS. 


55 


This  ruling  is  contrary  to  the  general  rule  maintained  in  the 
United  States  courtS;  the  courts  of  other  states,  and  the  English 
courts.^ 

§  19.  Owners  of  boats  employed  in  towing  other  boats  or  vessels. 
The  United  States  courts  have  held  that  an  engagement  to 
tow  does  not  impose  an  obligation  to  insure  or  the  liability  of  a 
common  carrier,  and  that  owners  of  a  tug  engaged  in  towing  are 
not  liable  as  carriers,  but  for  reasonable  care,  caution,  and  mari- 
time skill  in  the  management  of  the  tow.  The  contract  requires 
no  more  than  that  he  who  undertakes  to  tow  shall  carry  out  his 
imdertaking  with  that  degree  of  caution  and  maritime  skill  which 

A  towing 


prudent  navigators  usually  employ  in  similar  services. 


1.  See  §  19,  post.  In  explanation 
of  this  conflict  of  authority,  it  was 
eaid  by  Howe,  J.,  in  Bussey  v.  Miss- 
issippi Val.  Transp.  Co.,  supra: 
"  Such  conflict  of  authority  might  be 
▼ery  distressing  to  the  student  but 
for  the  fact  that  when  these  writers 
and  cases  cited  by  them  are  examined, 
the  discrepancy,  except  in  the  deci- 
sions in  Brown  v.  Clegg,  63  Pa.  St. 
51,  3  Am.  Rep.  522,  is  more  imagin- 
ary than  real.  There  are  two  vei-y 
diflerent  ways  in  which  a  steam  tow- 
boat  may  be  employed,  and  it  is  likely 
that  Mr.  Story  (Story  on  Bailments, 
5  496)  was  contemplating  one 
method,  and  Mr.  Kent  (2  Kent's 
Com.  599)  the  other.  In  the  first 
place  it  may  be  employed  as  a  mere 
means  of  locomotion  under  the  en- 
tire control  of  the  towed  vessel;  or 
the  owner  of  the  towed  vessel  and 
goods  therein  may  remain  in  posses- 
sion and  control  of  the  property  thus 
transported  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
bailee;  or  the  towing  may  be  casual 
merely,  and  not  as  a  regular  business 
between  fixed  termini.     .     .  And 

it  might  well  be  said  that  under  such 
«ircumBtance(  the  tow  bont  or  tug  is 


not  a  common  carrier.  But  a  second 
and  quite  difl"erent  method  of  employ- 
ing a  tow  boat  is  where  she  plies 
regularly  between  fixed  termini,  tow- 
ing for  hire  and  for  all  persons  bar- 
ges laden  with  goods,  and  taking  into 
her  full  possession  and  control  and 
out  of  the  control  of  the  bailor  the 
property  thus  transported.  Such  is 
the  case  at  bar.  It  seems  to  satisfy 
every  requirement  in  the  definition 
of  a  common  carrier.  .  .  .  We 
must  think  that  in  all  reason  the  lia- 
bility of  the  defendants  under  such 
circumstances  should  be  precisely  the 
same  as  if,  the  barge  being  much 
smaller,  it  had  been  carried,  cargo 
and  all,  on  the  deck  of  their  tug." 

2.  The  Blue  Bell,  189  Fed.  824; 
Tlie  E.  V.  McCauUey,  189  Fed.  827; 
The  Harry  M.  Wall,  187  Fed.  278; 
Southern  Towing  Co.  v.  Egan,  184 
Fed.  275,  106  C.  C.  A.  417;  The  Fort 
George,  183  Fed.  731,  106  C.  C.  A. 
417,  172  Fed.  1008;  The  Leader,  181 
Fed.  743,  J.  T.  Morgan  Lumber  Co.  v. 
West  Kentucky  Co.,  811  Fed.  271; 
Tlie  J.  P.  Donaldson.  167  U.  S.  603; 
The  Propeller  Burlington,  137  IT.  S, 
380;    Munks   v.  Jackson    (C.   C.  App. 


66 


TliK    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 


tug  is  not  a  "  common  carrier  "  nor  an  insurer,  and  is  bound  only 
to  the  exorcise  of  reasonable  skill  ant!  care  taking  into  considera- 
tion the  fact  that  it  contracts  as  an  expert  and  is  bound  to  know 
the  channel  and  its  usual  currents  and  dangers  and  to  avoid  ob- 
structions which  ought  to  be  known  to  men  experienced  in  its  navi- 
gation."'^ Such  is  maintained  to  be  the  law  in  New  York,  where, 
in  the  leading  case,  the  court  said:  "It  is  a  great  misnomer  to 
call  the  defendant  common  carriers,  or  carriers  of  any  kind  in 
relation  to  the  business  of  towing  boats.  Nor  are  they  bailees  of 
any  description ;  for  the  property  towed  is  not  delivered  to  them, 
nor  placed  within  their  exclusive  custody  or  control.  It  remains 
in  the  possession  and  for  most  purposes  in  the  exclusive  care  of  the 
owners  or  their  servants.  There  is  no  bailment  within  any  defini- 
tion of  that  term  to  be  found  in  the  books.  But  whether  a  bail- 
ment or  not,  it  is  clear  that  those  who  tow  boats  and  vessels  are  not 
common  carriers  of  the  things  towed." '     That  towing  vessels  or 


9th  C),  13  C.  C.  A.  641,  66  Fed. 
571;  The  L.  P.  Dayton,  12>0  U.  S. 
337;  Eastern  Transportation  Line  v. 
Hope,  95  U.  S.  (5  Otto)  297;  Hinter 
V.  Steamer  Napoleon,  3  Wall.  (U.S.) 
5;  The  Quickstep,  9  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
665;  The  Steamer  Webb,  14  Wall.  (U. 
S.)  406;  The  Lyon,  1  Brown's  Adm. 
(U.  S.)  59;  The  Stranger,  1  Brown's 
Adm.  (U.  S.)  281;  The  Oconto,  5 
Eiss.  (U.  S.)  460;  The  Merrimac,  2 
Sawy.  (U.  S.)  586;  The  Angelina 
Corning,  1  Ben.  (U.  S.)  109;  The 
Princeton,  3  Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  54;  The 
NeafTie,  1  Abb.  (U.  S.)  465;  Brawley 
V.  The  Jim  Watson,  2  Bond  (U.  S.) 
356;  Tlie  Margaret  v.  Bliss,  94  U.  S. 
494;  The  New  Pliiladelphia,  66  U.  S. 
(1  Black)    62,  17  L.  Ed.  84. 

2a.  The  El  Rio,  162  Fed.  567. 

3.  Wells  V.  Steam  Navigation  Co., 
2  N.  Y.  204,  205,  Bronson,  J.;  s.  c. 
8  N.  Y.  375;  Arctic  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Austin,  54  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  559;  Caton 
V.  Rumney,  13  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  387; 
Alexander  v.  Greene,  3  Hill   (N.  Y.), 


9,  revd.  7  Hill  (N.  Y.),  533;  Wooden 
V.  Austin,  51  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  9;  Ab- 
bey V.  The  Robert  L.  Stevens,  22  How. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  78;  Parmalee  v.  Wilks, 
22  Barb.  539;  Merrick  v.  Brainard, 
38  Barb.  574;  Carpenter  v.  Eastern 
Transp.  Line,  67  Barb.  570. 

Worth  preserving. — The  remarks  of 
Bronson,  J.,  in  his  opinion  above 
quoted,  concerning  the  reversal  of 
the  decision  in  the  case  of  Alexander 
V.  Greene:  "It  is  true  that  the 
judgment  in  Alexander  v.  Greene  was 
reversed  by  the  Court  of  Errors.  (7 
Hill,  583.)  But  what  particular 
point  or  principle  of  law  was  decided 
by  the  court,  or  what  a  majority  of 
the  members  thought  upon  any  par- 
ticular question  of  law,  no  one  can 
tell.  It  appears  by  the  reporter's 
head  note,  that  he  could  not  tell,  and 
from  his  note  at  the  end  of  the  case, 
it  is  apparent  that  the  court  itself 
could  not  tell.  Two  merchants  and 
two  lawyers  thought  the  defendants 
were    common    carriers,    while    other 


CX):\DkIOX  CARRIERS. 


57 


boats  are  not  common  carriers  as  to  the  tow,  but  incur  only  the  re- 
sponsibility of  ordinary  bailees  for  hire,  is  maintained  by  many 
decisions  of  the  courts  of  Pennsylvania  and  other  states.*  The 
English  courts  hold  the  same  doctrine.^  In  Kentucky  it  has  been 
held,  contrary  to  the  view  taken  by  the  Louisiana  courts  in  refer- 
ence to  tow  boats  on  the  Mississippi  River,  that  owners  of  tow 
boats  on  the  Ohio  River  and  its  tributaries  are  merely  private 
carriers,  and  are  only  liable  to  exercise  ordinary  care  and  skill, 
considering  the  nature  of  their  business.  Unless  he  has  made  a 
special  agreement  therefor,  a  private  carrier  is  not  bound  to  carry 
or  tow  for  all  persons  tendering  to  him  anything  to  be  transferred 
or  towed.  Otherwise  as  to  a  common  carrier,  or  one  who  has  so  acted 
as  to  justify  the  belief  that  he  offers  to  carry  for  any  person  be- 
tween certain  termini,  or  on  a  certain  route.^    The  duty  rests  upon 


senators  expressed  a  different  opin- 
ion, and  went  upon  other  grounds; 
and  it  does  not  appear  that  more 
than  four  of  the  seventeen  senators 
who  voted  for  the  reversal  were 
agreed  concerning  any  one  of  the 
questions  in  the  case.  Two  efforts 
were  made  at  the  time  to  ascertain 
"  the  ground  of  the  judgment,"  but 
both  proved  abortive;  and  thus  the 
majority  virtually  said,  that  al- 
though the  judgment  was  reversed, 
no  point  or  principle  of  law  was  set- 
tled by  the  decision.  It  happened  in 
that  case,  as  it  has  happened  on  other 
occasions,  that  a  majority  of  the 
members  of  that  multitudinous  court 
made  up  their  ininds  to  reverse  a 
judgment,  and  they  did  it;  but  not 
being  able  to  agree  concerning  the 
ground  of  their  action,  they  plainly 
enough  admitted  that  nothing  was 
settled  by  the  decision.  The  case  is 
not  an  authority  for  anything;  it 
could  only  have  been  reported  for  the 
purpose  of  preserving  the  reasons  of 
those  who  delivered  opinions." 

4,  Hayes  v.  Miliar,  77  Ta.  St.  233, 


18  Am.  Rep.  445;  Bro\^Ti  v.  Clegg,  63 
Pa.  St.  51,  3  Am.  Rep.  522;  Leonard 
V.  Hendrickson,  18  Pa.  St.  40;  Hays 
V.  Paul,  51  Pa.  St.  134,  88  Am.  Dec. 
569;  Sproul  v.  Hemingway,  14  Pick. 
(Mass.)  1;  Pennsylvania  Nav.  Co. 
V.  Dandridge,  8  Gill  &  J.  (Md.)  248, 
29  Am.  Dec.  543. 

As  to  whether  persons  engaged  in 
towing  vessels  are  liable  as  common 
carriers,  quaere,  Ashmore  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania, etc.,  Co.,  28  N.  J.  L.  (4  Dutch.) 
180. 

5.  Symonds  v.  Pain,  6  Hurl.  &  N. 
709;  The  Julia,  14  Moore  P.  C.  210; 
The  Minnehaha,  1  Lush.  335. 

6.  Varble  v.  Bigley,  77  Ky.  (14 
Bush)  698;  9  Cent.  L.  J.  153,  29  Am. 
Rep.  435.  See  §  18,  ante.  In  a  later 
case  it  has  been  held  that  tlie  ques- 
tion whether  the  owner  of  a  tow  boat 
held  himself  out  as  a  common  carrier 
for  the  time  being  was  for  the  jury, 
and  that  if  the  jury  found  that  he 
had,  then  he  was  liable  as  a  common 
carrier.  Bassett  &  Stone  v.  Aber- 
deen Ooal  &  Mining  Co.  (Ky.),  88  SI 
W.  318. 


rjj  Tlll^    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

i\  towinu:  tu'^  (o  cxon'iso  at  loast  reasonable  skill  and  caro  in  every- 
thing rt.  luting  to  the  undertaking,  having  dne  regard  to  the  extent 
of  the  voyage  and  any  special  hazards  incident  to  the  seas  to  be 
traversed,  inclnding  not  only  proper  and  safe  navigation  of  the 
tug  on  the  voyage,  hut  also  to  see  to  the  proper  make-up  of  the  tow 
and  the  furnishing  of  safe,  sound,  and  suitable  appliances  and 
instrumentalities  for  the  service  to  be  performed/*  The  duty  of 
a  tujr  to  a  tow  is  a  continuous  one  from  the  time  the  service  com- 
mences  until  it  is  completed,  and  where  it  becomes  necessary  to 
anchor  the  tow  the  tug's  obligation  of  reasonable  care  continues, 
at  least  until  she  is  safely  anchored.*''  Where  two  tugs  are  acting 
jointly  in  towing  a  vessel,  and  an  accident  happens  to  the  tow 
through  their  negligence,  both  tugs  are  liable,  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  one  is  acting  as  a  helper,  under  orders  of  the  master  of 
the  other.**^ 

§  20.  Ferrymen. 

A  ferry  is  a  continuation  of  the  highway  from  one  side  of  the 
water  over  which  it  passes  to  the  other,  and  is  for  the  transporta- 
tion of  passengers,  or  of  travelers  with  their  teams  and  vehicles 
and  such  other  property  as  they  may  carry  or  have  with  them.' 
In  a  strictly  ferry  business,  property  is  always  transported  only 
with  the  owner  or  custodian  thereof ;  and  ferrymen  who  do  nothing 
but  a  ferry  business,  and  have  nothing  but  a  ferry  franchise,  are 
bound  to  transport  no  other  property ;  and  in  the  transportation  of 
persons  with  their  property,  they  are  not  imder  the  obligations 
of  a  common  carrier,  but  are  bound  only  to  use  due  care  and  dili- 
gence. It  is  well  settled  that  if  the  owner  retains  control  of  the 
property  himself,  and  does  not  surrender  the  charge  of  it  to  the 
ferryman,  he  is  not  a  common  carrier  and  liable  as  such  for  all 
losses  and  injuries  except  those  caused  by  the  act  of  God  or  the 
public  enemies,   but  is  only  responsible  for  actual  negligence.* 

6a.  The   Britannia,   148    Fed.   495;  Co.,  52  N.  Y.  35,   11  Am.  Rep.   650; 

The  Edwin  Terry,  162  Fed.  309,  311,  Evans  v.  Rudy,  34  Ark.  385;  Harvey 

89  C.  C.  A.  17,  19.  V.  Rose,  26  Ark.  3,  7  Am.  Rep.  695; 

6b.  The  Printer,  164  Fed.  314.  Davies    v.    Mann,    10     Mees.     &     W. 

6c.  The   Anthracite,   162   Fed.   384.  (Eng.)     546;    Dudley    v.    Camden    & 

7.  Broodnoi  v.  Baker,  94  N.  C.  Phila.  Ferry  Co.,  13  Vroom.  (N.  J.) 
675.  25;     White    v.    Winnisimmet    Co.,    7 

8.  Wyckoff  T.  Queena  County  Ferry  Cush.    (Mass.)    155. 


CJOMMON  CARRIERS.  59 

But  ferr\Tnen  may  combine,  and  usually  do  comLine,  with  the 
ferry  business,  the  business  of  a  common  carrier,  carrying  freight 
and  merchandise  without  the  presence  of  the  owner  or  custodian, 
like  other  carriers  engaged  in  the  transportation  of  such  freight ; 
and  as  to  such  freight,  they  are  under  the  duties  and  obligation 
of  a  common  carrier.  As  ferrymen,  they  are  under  a  public  duty 
to  transport  with  suitable  care  and  diligence  all  persons  with  or 
without  their  vehicles  and  other  property;  and  as  common  carriers, 
it  is  their  duty  to  carry  all  freight  and  merchandise  delivered  to 
them.*  It  is  maintained  by  many  authorities  and  seems  to  be  well 
settled  that  ferrymen,  when  they  receive  property  for  transporta- 
tion, and  have  the  exclusive  custody  of  it,  are  to  be  held  to  the 
strict  liability  of  common  carriers.^"  It  is  held  that  public  ferry- 
men are  presumably  responsible,  as  common  carriers,  for  property 
received  by  them  for  transportation;  that  to  relieve  themselves, 
they  must  show  that  they  had  no  such  control  over  it  as  invested 
them  with  the  character  of  a  common  carrier ;  that  after  the  prop- 
erty has  been  put  on  board  their  boats,  it  is  prima  facie  in  their 
charge,  and  they  are  responsible  for  it ;  and  it  makes  no  difference 
that  the  owner  is  present,  unless  he  consent  to  assume  the  charge 
thereof.^^     Other  cases  hold  that  ferrymen  are  chargeable  as  com- 

9.  Mayor,    etc.,    of    New    York    v.       C),  157;  White  v.  Winnisimmet  Co., 
Starin,  106  N.  Y.  1.  7  Cush.    (Mass.)    155;   Joy  v.  Winni- 

10.  VVyckoff  V.  Queens  County  simmet  Co.,  114  Mass.  63;  Miller  t. 
Ferry  Co.,  52  N.  Y.  35,  11  Am.  Rep.  Pendleton,  8  Gray  (Mass.),  574; 
650,  the  liability  of  a  common  carrier  Claypool  v.  McAllister,  ao  111.  504; 
in  all  its  extent  only  attaches  when  Garner  v.  Green,  8  Ala.  96;  Trent  v. 
there  is  an  actual  bailment  and  the  Cartersville  Bridge  Co.,  11  Leigh 
party  sought  to  be  charged  has  the  (Vfl,.),  544;  Walker  v.  Jackson,  10 
exclusive  custody  and  control  of  M.  &  W.  161;  Rutherford  v.  Mc- 
property  for  carriage;  Clark  v.  Union  Gowcn,  1  Nott  &  M.  (S.  C.)  19;  Wil- 
Ferry  Co.,  35  N.  Y.  485;  Evans  v.  loughby  v.  Horridge.  12  C.  B.  742. 
Rudy,  34  Ark.  385;  Harvey  v.  Rose,  11.  Ilarvcy  v.  Rosa,  26  Ark.  3; 
26  Ark.  3;  Pomeroy  v.  Donaldson.  5  Powell  v.  Mills,  37  Miss.  691;  Slim- 
Mo.  36;  Babcock  v.  Herbert,  3  Ala.  mer  v.  Merry,  23  Iowa,  91;  Whit- 
392;  Sanders  v.  Young,  1  Head  more  v.  Bowman,  4  G.  Gr.  (Iowa) 
(Tenn.),  219;  May  v.  Hanson,  5  Cal.  148;  I.,eBarron  v.  East  Boston  Forrv 
360;  Smith  v.  Seward,  3  Pa.  St.  342;  Co.,  11  Allen  (Mass.),  312;  Richar.U 
Albright  v.  Penn,  14  Tex.  290;  So-  v.  Fuqua,  28  Miss.  793;  Griffith  v. 
hen    T.    Hume,    1    McCord     (S.     C),  Cave,  22  Cal.  535. 

444;    Milea   v.   James,    1    McCord    (S.. 


go  THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

inon  carriers  for  the  absolute  safi'ty  of  property  thus  carried,  antl 
that  the  owner,  in  taking  care  of  the  property  during  the  passage 
of  the  boat,  may  be  regarded  as  the  agent  of  the  ferryman ;  ^^  but 
this  position  is  questioned  as  not  based  upon  any  just  principle 
and  as  not  within  the  reasons  of  public  policy  upon  which  the  ex- 
treme liabilities  of  common  carriers  rest.^^  One  who  keeps  a  ferry 
for  his  own  use  and  for  the  convenience  of  customers  to  his  mill, 
but  who  charges  no  ferriage,  is  not  a  common  carrier,  and  is  only 
bound  to  ordinary  diligence."  But  the  owner  of  a  private  ferry, 
although  not  on  a  road  opened  by  public  authority,  or  repaired 
by  public  labor,  may  so  use  it  as  to  subject  himself  to  the  liability 
of  a  common  carrier,  if  he  undertakes  for  hire,  to  convey  across 
the  river  all  persons  indifferently,  with  their  carriage  and  goods ; 
but  this  is  a  question  for  a  jury.^^  A  corporation  incorporated 
under  [Mich.  Comp.  Laws,  §§  6646-GG59,  to  own  and  operate 
ferries  on  a  river,  which  o^vns  and  operates  an  amusement  park 
and  steamers  for  the  transportation  of  persons  to  and  from  the 
park,  is  not  a  common  carrier  while  engaged  in  transporting  such 
persons,  and  may  refuse  transportation  to  any  one  at  its  pleasure.^^* 

§  21.  Hackmen. 

Proprietors  of  hacks  have  been  held  to  be  common  carriers  and 
bound  to  exercise  the  utmost  care  and  skill.^*  But  whether  the 
hackman's  business  can  be  justly  considered  that  of  a  common 
carrier  under  all  circumstances  has  been  questioned.     It  is  said 

12.  Fisher  v.  Clisbce,  12  111.  344;  R.  Co.,  75  Hun  (N.  Y.),  355,  56  St, 
Powell  V.  Mills,  37  Miss.  691;  Wilson  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  748,  27  N.  Y.  Supp.  69. 
V.  Hamilton,  4  Ohio  St.  722.  The  point  actually  decided  in  the  case 

13.  W'yckolT  v.  Queens  County  last  cited  was  that  a  hackman  is  not 
Ferry  Co.,  supra.  a  common  carrier  within  the  meaning 

14.  Self  V.  Dunn,  43  Ga.  528,  5  of  N,  Y,  Laws  1892,  chap.  676,  pro- 
Am.  Rep.  544.  viding    that    no    preference    for    the 

15.  Littlejohn  t.  Jones,  2  McMul.  transaction  of  the  business  of  a  com- 
(S.  C.)    366,  39  Am.  Dec.  132.  mon  carrier  upon   its  cars,  or  in   its 

15a.  Meisner  v.  Detroit,  etc..  Ferry  depots     or    buildings,     or     upon     its 

Co.,   154  Mich.   545,   15   Det.   Leg.  N,  grounds,  shall  be  granted  by  any  rail- 

826,  118  N.  W.  14.  road  company  to  any  one  of  two  or 

16.  Bonce  v.  Dubuque  St.  Ry.  Co.,  more  persons  competing  in  the  same 
53  Iowa,  278,   36  Am.  Rep,  221.  business,  or   in   that  of   transporting 

17.  Brown  v.  N.  Y.  Cent.  &,  H.  R.  for  themselves  or  others. 


co:mmox  carriers. 


Gl 


that  he  transports  passengers  here  and  there  about  the  streets  of  a 
village  or  city,  having  no  established  route  over  which  his  con- 
veyance runs,  nor  any  specified  times  for  making  his  trips.  He 
assumes  the  right  to  let  his  rig  for  a  day,  or  any  other  specified 
time,  to  suit  the  convenience  or  wishes  of  his  patrons.  He  gives 
the  exclusive  use  of  his  carriage  to  a  less  number  of  persons  than 
it  can  conveniently  accommodate.  He  pursues  his  business  if  he 
finds  it  profitable  to  do  so ;  if  not,  he  remains  idle.  The  obliga- 
tions and  duties  of  a  common  carrier  are  very  different."  "Where 
a  passenger  riding  in  a  hired  cab  was  injured  in  a  collision  be- 
tween the  cab  and  a  street  car  by  the  concurrent  negligence  of  the 
street  car  company  and  the  cab  driver,  the  cab  driver  was  a  com- 
mon carrier  of  passengers  for  hire,  and  an  instruction  that  he  was 
bound  to  exercise  a  very  high  degree  of  care  was  proper."*  The 
duty  of  a  hack  driver  requires  no  greater  degree  of  care  than  that 
he  keep  a  prudent  and  careful  lookout  ahead  of  him,  and  that  he 
use  all  reasonable  care  to  avoid  obstructions  and  excavations  in 
the  street.^^  One  who  solicits  the  services  of  a  licensed  hackman 
is  a  passenger,  within  the  meaning  of  an  ordinance  providing  that 
it  shall  be  unlawful  for  the  driver  of  an  omnibus  or  automobile  to 
refuse  to  convey  a  passenger  from  any  one  point  to  any  other  point 
in  the  city."" 

§  22.  Proprietors  of  omnibuses. 

The  proprietor  of  a  line  of  omnibuses  and  baggage  wagons, 
engaged  in  the  business  of  carrying,  for  hire,  passengers  and  bag- 
gage, or  either  alone,  between  the  hotels  and  depots  of  a  city,  is  a 
common  carrier;  and  is  answerable  as  such  for  the  safe  delivery 
of  articles  received  for  transportation.-^^  Omnibus  proprietors  who 
carry  passengers  and  baggage  for  hire  incur  the  ordinary  responsi- 
bility of  a  common  carrier,  with  respect  to  their  baggage ;  nothing 
will  excuse  them  for  a  loss  of,  or  injury  to  it,  but  inevitable  acci- 
dent, or  the  act  of  the  public  enemy."     A  carrier  of  passengers  is 

17a.  Stinor  v.  Metropolitan  St.  Ry.  18.  Parmelcc  v.  Lowitz,  74  III.  IIG, 

Ck).,  84  N.  Y.  Supp.  285.  24  Am.  Rep.  276. 

17b.  Fisher  v.  Tryon,  15  Ohio  Cir.  19.  Powell  v.  Myers,  26  Wend.    (N". 

Ct.   Rep.   541,  8   0.   C.   D.   556.  Y.)    591;   Camden  &  Aniboy  R.  Co.  v. 

17c.  Atlantic  City  v.  Erown,  71  N.  Belknap,     21    Wend.    (N.     Y.)      354; 

J.  Law,  81,    58  Atl.  110.  Clark  v.  Faxton,  26   Wend.    (N.   Y.) 


62 


THE    LAW    OF    CAKRIEKS. 


responsible  fur  tliclr  baggage,  if  lot;t,  thougb  no  distinct  price  be 
paid  for  its  transportation;  but  ho  is  not  liable  for  a  large  sum 
of  money,  in  a  trunk,  in  excess  of  an  amount  ordinarily  carried 
for  traveling  purposes.^. 

§  23.  Proprietors  of  stage  coaches. 

iStage  coach  proprietors  are  answerable  as  common  carriers  for 
the  baggage  of  passengers,  and  cannot  restrict  their  liability  by  a 
general  notice  that  ''  the  baggage  of  passengers  is  at  the  risk  of  the 
owners."  ^^  An  established  practice  of  conveying  for  hire,  in  a 
stage  coach,  parcels  not  belonging  to  passengers,  constitutes  the 
proprietors  of  the  coach  common  carriers,  and  renders  them  liable 
for  the  loss  or  injury  of  such  parcels.^^  The  driver  of  a  stage 
coach,  in  the  general  employ  of  the  proprietors  of  the  coach,  and 
in  the  habit  of  transporting  small  packages  of  money  for  a  small 
compensation,  which  was  uniform,  whatever  might  be  the  amount 
of  the  package,  is  a  bailee  for  hire,  answerable  for  ordinary  negli- 
gence, and  not  subject  to  the  responsibilities  of  a  common  carrier.^ 


153;  Cole  v.  Goodwin,  19  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)  251;  Hollister  v.  Nowlen,  19 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  234;  Camden  &  Ara- 
boy  R.  Co.  V.  Burke,  13  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)  611;  Dibble  v.  Brown,  12  Ga.  217, 
56  Am.  Dec.  460;  Jones  v.  Voorhees, 
10  Ohio,  145, 

20.  Orange  Co.  Bank  v.  Brown,  9 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  85;  Hawkins  v.  HofT- 
man,  6  Hill  (N.  Y.),  586;  Hollister 
V.  Nowlen,  19  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  234; 
Cole  V.  Goodwin,  19  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
251;  McGill  v.  Rowand,  3  Barr 
(Pa.),  451;  Bomer  v.  Maxwell,  9 
Humph.  (Tenn.)  621;  Brooke  v. 
Pickwick.  4  Bing.    (Eng.)    218. 

21.  Hollister  v.  Nowlen,  19  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  234;  Cole  v.  Goodwin,  19 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  251;  Clark  v.  Faxton, 
21  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  153;  Powell  v. 
Myers,  26  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  591;  Cam- 
den &  Amboy  R.  Co.  v.  Belknap.  21 
W»nd.  (N.  Y.)  354;  Jones  v.  Voor- 
lees,  10  Ohio,  145. 


22.  Dwight  V.  Brewster,  1  Pick. 
(Mass.)  53,  11  Am.  Dec.  133;  Beck- 
man  V.  Shouse,  5  Rawie  (Pa.),  179, 
28  Am.  Dec.  653 ;  Robertson  v.  Ken- 
nedy, 2  Dana  (Ky.),  430;  Merwin 
V.  Butler,  17  Conn.  138;  McHenry  v. 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  Co.,  4  Har.  (Del.) 
448;  Jones  v.  Voorhees,  10  Ohio,  145; 
Powell  V.  Mills,  30  Miss.  231,  64  Am. 
Dec.  158,  prima  facie.,  the  proprietors 
of  stage  coaches,  used  for  carrying 
the  mails,  passengers  and  their  bag- 
gage, are  not  to  be  considered  com- 
mon carriers  as  to  articles  not 
strictly  within  their  line  of  business, 
in  the  technical  sense  of  that  term. 
They  may,  however,  make  themselves 
such  by  special  contract,  in  a  par- 
ticular case,  or  by  their  gem^ral 
course  of  business.  Peizotti  v.  Mc- 
Laughlin, 1  Strob.  (S.  C.)  468,  47 
Am.  Dec.  563;  Walker  v.  Skipwith, 
Meigs   (Tenn.),  502. 

23.  Sheldon  v.  Robinson,  7.  N.  H. 
157. 


CXDMMON  CARRIERS.  65 

The  owners  of  the  coach  in  such  a  case  were  held  answerable  for 
the  neglience  of  the  driver  in  not  delivering  a  parcel  of  that  de- 
scription, intrusted  to  him  to  carry,  unless  the  arrangement  was 
known  to  the  o^vner  of  the  goods,  so  that  he  contracted  with  the 
driver  as  principal.^*  The  responsibility  of  a  carrier  does  not 
attach,  until  there  has  been  a  complete  delivery  for  transportation, 
to  him,  or  to  a  servant  instructed  to  receive  goods  for  such  pur- 
pose.^ The  driver  of  a  stage  coach  should,  before  commencing 
his  journey,  ascertain  that  the  passengers  are  seated ;  but  in  his 
journey  over  ordinary  streets  and  highways,  where  frequent  or 
occasional  necessary  stoppages  are  made  because  of  crowds,  par- 
ades, or  the  like,  or  because  of  the  use  of  the  street  or  highway  by 
others  of  the  public,  he  is  not  bound,  before  he  starts  again,  to 
give  notice  to  the  passengers  that  he  is  about  to  do  so,  or  to  ascer- 
tain whether  the  passengers  remained  seated  as  before  the  stoppage 
was  made.^'^  In  an  action  against  a  stagecoach  proprietor  for  in- 
juries to  one  while  a  passenger,  it  was  error  to  refuse  to  instruct 
that,  unless  the  negligent  act  complained  of  was  the  direct  and 
proximate  cause  of  the  runaway  which  resulted  in  the  injury, 
plaintiff  could  not  recover.^** 

§  24.  Palace  and  sleeping  car  companies. 

Sleeping  car  companies  are  not  insurers  of  the  baggage,  money, 
or  other  personal  effects  of  a  passenger,  and  the  courts  have  almost 
universally  refused  to  impose  upon  them  the  absolute  liability 
attaching  to  innkeepers  and  common  carriers  of  goods.^®     While 

24.  Bean  v.  Sturtevant,  8  N.  H.  N.  Y.  Supp.  1111;  Carpenter  v.  New 
145;  Dwight  v.  Brewster,  1  Pick.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124  N.  Y.  53,  26 
(Mass.)  53;  Beckman  v.  Shouse,  5  N.  E.  277,  21  Am.  St.  Rep.  644,  47 
Rawle   (Pa.),  179.  Am.   &    Eng.   R.   Cas.   421;    Tracy   v. 

25.  Blanchard  v.  Isaacs,  3  Barb.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.,  67  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)    388.  (N.  Y.)    154;  Welch  v.  Pullman  Pal- 

25a.  Haile   v.   Clayton  &  HolT  Co.,  ace  Car  Co.,   16  Abb.  Pr.   N.  S.    (N. 

6]   N.  J.  Law,  197,  38  Atl.  805.  Y.)     352;     Palmeter    v.    Wagner,     11 

25b.  Taillon    v.    Mears,    29    Mont.  Alb.  L.  J.  149. 

161,  74  Pac.  421.  U.   -ST.— Barrett   v.    Pullman    Palace 

26.  .V.  y.— Williams  ▼.  Webb,  27  Car  Co.,  51  p'ed.  796;  Ivomon  v.  Pull- 
Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  508,  58  N.  Y.  man  Palace  Car  Co.,  52  Fod.  262; 
Supp.  300.  6  Am.  Neg.  Rep.  129,  Blum  v.  Southern  Pullman  Palace 
irmlT.  r3  Misf.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)   513,  49  Car  Co.,  1   Flip.   (U.  S.)    500. 


G4 


THE    LAW    OF    CARIUERS. 


the  law,  liowevor,  chios  not  make  a  sleeping  car  company  the  insurer 
of  the  etfeots  of  the  occupants  of  its  berths,  it  does  not  absolve  it 
from  all  liability.  IJut  the  ground  of  this  liability  rests  simply 
and  solely  in  negligence.  The  company  is  bound  to  exercise 
reasonable  care  and  vigilance  in  looking  after  the  person  and  prop- 
erty of  a  passenger  ihiriug  the  night  while  the  passenger  is  asleep, 
or  using  the  necessary  conveniences  of  the  car,  and  it  is  bound  so 
to  manage  its  car  as  not  unreasonably  to  expose  his  property  to 
an  unusual  risk  of  loss  by  thieves  or  otherwise,  and  it  is  liable 
only  for  its  failure  so  to  do."    A  contrary  doctrine  has  been  enunci- 


Ala. — rullman  Talace  Car  Ck).  v. 
Adams   (Ala.),  24  So.  921. 

///.—Pullman  Talace  Car  Co.  v. 
Smith,  73  111.  360,  24  Am.  Rep.  258. 

Ind. — Woodruff  Sleeping,  etc.. 
Coach  Co.  V.  Diehl,  84  Ind.  474,  9  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  294,  43  Am.  Rep.  102. 

Ky. — Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v. 
Gaylord,  6  Ky.  L.  Rep.  279,  23  Am.  L. 
Reg.    (N.    S.)    788. 

La.— Williams  v.  Pullman  Palace 
Car  Co.,  40  La.  Ann.  87,  33  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  407,  8  Am.  St.  Rep.  512. 

Mass. — Lewis  v.  New  York  Sleep- 
ing Car  Co.,  143  Mass.  269,  28  Am.  &, 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  148,  58  Am.  Rep.  145; 
Dawley  v.  Wagner  Palace  Car  Co., 
169  Mass.  315. 

3/iss.— Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Handy,  63  Miss.  609,  56  Am.  Rep. 
846;  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Law- 
rence, 74  Miss.  784,  22  So.  53. 

3/0. — Morrow  v.  Pullman  Palace 
Car  Co.,  98  Mo.  App.  351,  73  S.  W. 
2S1;  Bevia  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
26  Mb.  App.  19;  Scaling  v.  Pullman 
Palace  Car  Co.,  24  Mo.  App.  29; 
Root  V.  New  York  Cent.  Sleeping  Car 
Co.,  28  Mo.  App.  199;  Hampton  v. 
P)illman  Palace  Car  Co.,  42  Mo.  App. 
134. 

O^iio.— Falls  River  4  M.  Co.  v.  Pull- 


man Palace  Car  Co.,  4  Ohio  N.  P.  23, 
6  Ohio  Dec.  85. 

Pa. — Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v. 
Gardner,  3  Penny.  (Pa.)  78,  16  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.   324. 

Tenn. — Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v. 
Gavin,  93  Tenn.  53,  23  S.  W.  70,  21 
L.  R.  A.  298,  42  Am.  St.  Rep.  902. 

Tex. — Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v. 
INIatthews,  74  Tex.  654,  15  Am.  St. 
Rep.  873;  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v. 
Pollock,  69  Tex.  120,  34  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  217,  5  Am.  St.  Rep.  31;  Bel- 
den  V.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  43  S.  W.  22,  3  Am.  Neg. 
Rep.  746. 

Can. — Smith  v.  Pullman  Palace 
Car  Co.   (Can.),  60  Alb.  L.  J.  188. 

27.  Williams  v.  Webb,  supra; 
Pullman's  Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Hall,  106 
Ga.  765,  71  Am.  St.  Rep.  293,  32  S. 
E.  923;  Voss  v.  Wagner  Palace  Car 
Co.,  16  Ind.  App.  271,  43  N.  E.  80; 
Stevenson  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  26  S.  W.  112,  32  S. 
W.  335;  Chamberlain  v.  Pullman 
Palace  Car  Co.,  55  Mo.  App.  474; 
Henderson  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co., 
20  Fed.  437;  Pullman  Palace  Car 
Co.  V.  Hunter  (Ky.),  54  S.  W.  845, 
47  L.  R.  A.  286;  Pullman  Palace  Car 
Co.  V.  Hatch   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  70  S. 


COMMON  CARRIERS. 


65 


ated  in  one  or  two  cases.^  It  has  been  held  that  a  passenger  is 
entitled  to  recover  from  a  sleeping  car  company  for  the  loss  or 
theft,  through  the  negligence  of  the  car  employes,  of  such  articles 
in  a  valise  as  are  usually  carried  by  hand,  which  add  to  the  com- 
fort, pleasure,  and  enjoyment  of  the  traveler,  and  they  may  in- 
clude an  opera  glass  and  compass,  but  not  a  pistol ;  ^^  for  the  theft 
of  a  diamond  ring  although  placed  in  a  pocket  book;^"  for  rings 
stolen  from  her  fingers  while  she  slept ;  ^^  for  such  sum  of  money 
only  as  is  reasonably  necessary  to  defray  the  expenses  of  his  trip, 
taking  into  consideration  his  station  in  life,  the  length,  duration, 
and  purposes  of  his  journey,  as  well  as  emergencies  that  may 
probably  arise.^^     The  mere  proof  of  loss  of  money  or  personal 


W.  771;  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v. 
Adams,  120  Ala.  581;  Pullman  Pal- 
ace Car  Co.  V.  Arents  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  66  S.  W.  329;  Dawley  v.  Wag- 
ner Palace  Car  Co.,  169  Mass.  315,  47 
N.  E.  1024;  Hughes  v.  Pullman  Pal- 
ace Car  Co.,  74  Fed.  499,  it  is  bound 
to  the  exercise  of  ordinary  and  rea- 
sonable care  over  the  passengers  and 
their  effects,  whether  the  contract  in- 
volved in  the  ticket  sold  by  it  pre- 
scribes it  in  terms  or  not.  See  also, 
cases  cited  in  last  preceding  note. 

The  question  of  the  company's 
negligence  is  a  question  for  the  jury, 
Arthur  v.  Pullman  Co.,  44  Misc.  Rep. 
(N.  Y.)  229,  88  N.  Y.  Supp.  981; 
Hatch  V.  Pullman  Sleeping  Car  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  84  S.  W.  246. 

28.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v. 
Lowe,  28  Neb.  239,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  637,  26  Am.  St.  Rep.  325,  hold- 
ing the  liability  of  a  sleeping  car  com- 
pany in  the  case  of  articles  of  wear- 
ing apparel  lost  in  the  car  to  l>e  sim- 
ilar to  the  innkeeper's  liability; 
Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lillie 
(Tenn.),  78  S.  W.  1055,  where  a  pas- 
senger carried  a  valise  into  a  sleep- 
ing car  and  on  retiring  placed  it  un- 
der his  berth,  the  valise  was,  in  effect, 

5 


placed  in  charge  of  the  railroad  com- 
pany, and  hence  it  was  liable  as  an 
insurer  thereof;  Voss  v.  Wagner  Pal- 
ace Car  Co.,  16  Ind.  App.  271,  43  N. 
E.  20,  a  sleeping  car  company  be- 
comes responsible  as  a  common  car- 
rier for  the  safe  delivery  of  the  bag- 
gage of  a  passenger  intrusted  to  the 
porter  to  be  carried  to  a  given  place. 

29.  Cooney  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car 
Co.,  121  Ala.  368,  25  So.  713,  6  Am. 
Neg.  Rep.  1.  See  also,  Blum  v. 
Southern  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.,  1 
Flip.  (U.  S.)  500;  Hampton  v.  Pull- 
man Palace  Car  Co.,  42  Mb.  App.  134. 

30.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Ad. 
ams,  120  Ala.  581,  24  So.  921,  45  L. 
R.  A.  7C7,  but  not  where  it  was  not  in 
a  condition  to  be  worn  for  the  use, 
convenience,  or  ornament  of  the  pas- 
senger on  his  trip. 

31.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v. 
Hunter  (Ky.),  54  S.  W.  845,  47  L. 
R.  A.  286. 

32.  Williams  v.  Webb,  27  Misc. 
Rep.  (N.  Y.)  508,  58  N.  Y.  Supp.  300. 
6  Am.  Nog.  Rep.  129;  Barroft  v.  PuU- 
mnn  Palace  Car  Co.,  51  Fed.  796; 
Hills  V.  Cliicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa, 
228;  Pfaelzer  v.  Palace  Car  Co.,  4  W. 
N.  C.   (Pa.)   240.     It  does  not  extend 


6ij 


THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 


ofTocts  by  ft  pnssongpr  while  occupying  a  birth  in  a  sleeping  car 
does  not  make  out  a  pritna  facie  case  against  the  company,  but 
some  eviileuce  of  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  defendant  must  be 
given."  Neither  the  railroad  company  nor  the  sleeping  car  com- 
pany is  liable  for  a  loss  of  baggage  when  the  passenger  himself  was 
negligent.^*  A  sleeping  car  company  will  not  be  liable  for  sickness 
contracted  by  an  occupant  of  an  upper  berth  from  water  dripping 
from  an  open  ventilating  window  during  a  heavy  rain  storm  in  tho 
night,  where  he  did  not  notify  those  in  charge  of  the  train  that  ho 
needed  special  care,  or  request  those  in  charge  of  the  car  to  close 
the  ventilator  and  was  in  a  position  to  reach  and  close  it  himself 
at  any  time.^^  A  sleeping  car  company  is  bound  to  furnish  the 
required  acconnnodations  to  a  passenger  if  it  has  them;^®  but  not 
to  one  who  by  the  rules  of  the  company  is  not  entitled  to  use  these 
accommodations,  as,  for  example,  one  not  holding  a  through  ticket 
or  a  second  class  passenger."     The  company  is  liable  in  damages 


to  an  amount  which  he  is  carrying 
for  the  purpose  of  depositing  in  a 
bunk.  Williams  y.  Webb,  22  Misc. 
Rep.  (N.  Y.)  513,  49  N.  Y.  Supp. 
nil. 

33.  Carpenter  v.  New  York,  et«., 
R,  Co.,  124  N.  Y.  53;  Tracy  v.  Pull- 
man Palace  Car  Co.,  67  How.  Pr.  (N. 
Y.)  154;  McMurray  v.  Pullman'3 
Palace  Car  Co.,  86  Mo,  App.  619; 
Hilla  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72 
Towa,  228;  Root  v.  New  York  Cent. 
Sleeping  Car  Co.,  28  Mo.  App.  199; 
Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Pollock, 
69  Tex.  120;  Stearns  v.  Pullman  Car 
Co.,  8  Ont.  Rep.  171.  Compare  Pull- 
man Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Lowe,  28  Neb. 
239;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Walrath,  38 
Ohio  St.  461.  The  company  cannot 
avoid  liability  for  property  lost  or 
stolen  through  its  negligence,  by  post- 
ing in  the  car  a  notice  disclaiming 
re?rponsibility,  if  it  does  not  appear 
that  the  passenger  saw  the  notion. 
Ijowis  V.  New  York  Cent.  Sleeping 
Car  Co.,  143  Mass.  267. 


34.  Welch  V.  Pullman  Palace  Car 
Co.,  16  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  352; 
Whicher  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  176 
Mass.  275,  57  N.  E.  601;  Whitney  v. 
Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.,  143  Mass. 
243;  Hills  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72 
Iowa,  228;  Barrott  v.  Pullman's  Pal- 
ace Car  Co.,  51  Fed.  796;  Root  v. 
New  York  Cent.  Sleeping  Car  Co., 
28  Mo.  App.  199;  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.  V.  Handy,  63  Miss.  609;  Pull- 
man Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Matthews,  74 
Tex.   654. 

35.  Edmunson  v.  Pullman  Palace 
Car  Co.,  92  Fed.  824,  14  Am,  &  Eng. 
R,  Cas,  N,  S.  336. 

36.  Scarles  v.  Mann  Boudoir  Car 
Co.,  45  Fed.  330;  Nevin  v.  Pullman 
Palace  Car  Co.,  106  111,  222,  11  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas,  92,  46  Am.  Rep.  683. 

37.  Lemon  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car 
Co.,  52  Fed.  262;  Pullman  Palace  Car 
Co.  V.  Taylor,  65  Ind.  153.  32  Am. 
Rep.  57;  Lawrence  v.  Pullman  Pal- 
ace Car  Co.,  144  Mass.  1,  28  Am.  & 
Eng.  R,  Cas.  151,  59  Am.  Rep.  53.    A 


COilMON  CARRIERS. 


67 


for  breach  of  contract  to  reserve  a  birth  for  a  passenger  or  for 
failure  to  furnish  hyn  with  a  birth  in  accordance  with  a  ticket 
purchased  and  paid  for  by  him.^*  The  company  is  bound,  and  it 
is  its  right,  to  preserve  order  and  enforce  a  proper  decorum,  as 
well  as  to  keep  a  reasonable  watch  over  the  persons  and  property 
of  passengers.^^  The  business  of  running  drawing  room,  or  palace 
or  sleeping  cars  in  connection  with  ordinary  passenger  cars  has 
become  one  of  the  common  incidents  of  passenger  traffic  on  the 
leading  railroads  of  the  country.  These  cars  are  mingled  with  the 
other  cars  of  the  company,  and  are  open  to  all  who  desire  to  enter 
them,  and  who  are  willing  to  pay  a  sum  in  addition  to  the  ordinary 
fare,  for  the  special  accommodation  afforded  by  them.     They  are 


sleeping  car  company  is  not  liable  for 
the  refusal  of  its  conductor  to  per- 
mit a  passenger's  son  to  occupy  a  sec- 
tion with  his  parents  without  pay- 
ment therefor,  where  the  son  was  not 
named  in  the  pass  with  them,  and  a 
rule  of  the  company  required  payment 
from  any  one  not  so  named.  Pullman 
Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Marsh  (Ind.),  53 
N.  E.  782,  1  Repr.  1024. 

Ejection  of  passenger.  A  sleeping 
car  company  is  not  a  common  carrier 
of  passengers,  and  its  liability  to  per- 
sons seeking  its  accommodations  rests 
solely  on  breach  of  its  implied  obliga- 
tion to  furnish  such  accommodations 
as  it  holds  itself  out  as  offering  to 
the  public.  Calhoun  v.  Pullman  Pal- 
ace Car  Co.,  149  Fed.  546  (C.  C, 
Tcnn.   1906). 

38.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v. 
Cain,  15  Tox.  Civ.  App.  503,  40  S.  W. 
220;  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Nel- 
son, 22  Tex.  Civ.  App.  223,  54  S.  W. 
624,  for  breach  of  contract  to  reserve 
a  berth  for  a  passenger  who  boarded 
a  sleeping  car,  suffering  from  illness, 
and  in  consequence,  owing  to  the  neg- 
ligence of  the  sleeping  car  company, 
was  compelled  to  sleep  in  the  waiting 


room,  where  her  privacy  was  fe- 
quently  intruded  on  by  the  porter 
and  others,  and  she  was  kept  awake, 
resulting  in  great  physical  pain,  men- 
tal distress  and  humiliation  during" 
the  entire  night,  a  judgment  of  $900 
is  not  excessive. 

Plaintiff  bought  and  paid  for  a 
sleeping  car  ticket  several  hours  be- 
fore the  train  left.  At  the  time  of 
starting  he  was  received  as  a  guest 
on  the  train  and  assigned  to  his  sec- 
tion, but  was  afterwards  told  by  the 
conductor  that  he  could  not  have  the 
berth,  because  it  was  occupied  by 
someone  else,  and  plaintiff  was  com- 
pelled to  sit  all  night  in  an  ordinary 
day  coach.  On  his  application  for  re- 
dress, he  was  told  that  he  could  have 
his  money  back.  Held,  that  the  evi- 
dence sustained  a  verdict  for  plain- 
tiff. Braun  v.  Webb,  65  N.  Y.  Supp. 
668,  32  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  243,  affg. 
on  rehearing  62  N.  Y.  Snnp.  1037. 

39.  Ncvin  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car 
Co.,  106  111.  222;  Lewis  v.  New  York 
Sleeping  Car  Co.,  143  Mas-s.  267; 
Pjiilman  Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Balles,  80 
Tex.  211,  47  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  416. 


Ob 


rUE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 


owued  in  most  instauoes,  thougli  not  always,  by  corporations  other 
than  those  operating  the  trains,  such  corporations  making  a  busi- 
ness of  the  ownership  and  management  of  such  cars.  But  they 
form  a  part  of  the  train  and  are  put  on  presumably  in  the  interest 
of  the  railroad  company,  and  the  railroad  company,  as  a  rule, 
cannot  relieve  itself  of  its  obligations  and  liabilities  as  a  common 
carrier  of  passengers  to  those  who  make  use  of  the  accommodations 
afforded  by  such  sleeping  and  palace  or  drawing  room  cars.  In  all 
matters  relating  to  the  safety  of  the  passengers  the  conductor,  por- 
ter, and  other  servants  of  such  cars  are  the  servants  of  the  com- 
pany of  whose  train  the  cars  is  for  the  time  being  a  part.''"  \ 
passenger  may  assume,  in  the  absence  of  notice  to  the  contrary, 
that  the  whole  train  is  under  one  management."  Allowing  a 
valise  to  stand  in  the  aisle  of  a  dimly-lighted  sleeping  car,  where 
passengers  are  apt  to  stumble  over  it,  is  negligence.'*^  But  an  ex- 
perienced traveler  who  opens  a  vestibule  door  of  a  sleeping  car 
by  mistake,  in  the  early  morning,  while  the  train  is  passing 
through  a  tunnel  and  the  car  is  dark,  and  steps  off  upon  the  track, 
Avhen  he  supposes  he  is  entering  the  car  closet,  is  guilty  of  such 
negligence  as  will  preclude  his  recovery,  even  if  the  carrier  is 
deemed  negligent.^^    It  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier  toward  a  passenger 


40.  Dwinelle  v.  New  York  Cent., 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  N.  Y.  117,  44  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  384;  Thorpe  v.  New 
York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y.  402, 
33  Am.  Rep.  325;  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.  V.  Roy,  103  U.  S.  451,  1  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  225;  Evansville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Athon,  2  Ind.  App.  295,  33  N. 
E.  469;  Williams  v.  Pullman  Palace 
Car  Co.,  40  La.  Ann.  417,  4  So.  85; 
Kinsley  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
125  Mass.  54,  28  Am.  Rep.  200;  Wil- 
son V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Mo. 
App.  682;  Bevis  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  26  Mo.  App.  19;  Hillis  v.  Chi- 
capo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa,  228;  Louis- 
ville &  N.  R.  Co.  V.  Ray,  101  Tenn. 
1,  46  S.  W.  554,  11  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  N.  S.  174. 

41.  LTrich  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc., 


R.  Co.,  198  N.  Y.  80,  2  Am.  St.  Rep. 
369,  34  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  350; 
Thorpe  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  76  N.  Y.  402;  Cleveland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Walrath,  38  Ohio  St.  461; 
Williams  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co., 
40  La.  Ann.  87,  417.  See  Paddock  v. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Fed.  841. 

42.  Levien  v.  Webb,  30  Misc.  Rep. 
(N.  Y.)  196,  61  N.  Y.  Supp.  1113. 
See  Lycett  v.  Manhattan  Ry.  Co.,  12 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  326,  42  N.  Y.  Supp. 
431. 

43.  Piper  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  156  N.  Y.  224,  41  L.  K.  A. 
744,  50  N.  E.  851,  11  Am.  &  Eng.  R, 
Cas.  N.  S.  202,  revg.  89  Hun  (N.  Y.), 
75.  A  passenger  on  a  sleeping  car  ia 
not,  as  a  matter  of  law,  guilty  of  neg- 
ligence  in   attempting  to   reverse  her 


COMMON  CARRIERS.  69  ■ 

holding  a  ticket  to  one  point  and  a  sleeping  car  ticket  to  another 
at  which  she  must  change  cars  in  order  to  reach  her  destination, 
to  awake  her  in  time  to  make  the  necessary  preparation  for  the 
ciiauge  in  a  suitable  and  decent  manner  upon  reaching  the  station, 
or,  failing  to  do  so,  to  hold  the  train  for  a  sufficient  time  to  enable 
her  to  make  such  preparation  as  is  necessary  to  change  cars  with- 
out trepidation  or  the  exposure  of  her  person  to  the  gaze  of  specta- 
tors, whether  or  not  such  duty  is  stipulated  in  the  contract  of  car- 
riage.** As  the  conductor  of  a  train  has  control  of  a  car  of  the 
Pullman  Palace  Car  Company  attached  to  the  train,  the  railroad 
company  cannot  recover  over  against  the  other  company  for  dam- 
ages to  a  passenger  on  the  palace  car  from  mental  suffering  caused 
by  the  language  of  drunken  persons  permitted  to  enter  and  remain 
in  the  car.*''  A  carrier  of  passengers  is  not  an  insurer  of  the 
quality  of  canned  goods  furnished  on  its  dining  cars,  and  is  not 
liable  for  injuries  to  a  passenger  eating  canned  goods  bought  from 
a  reliable  dealer  and  guaranteed  under  the  Pure  Food  Law,  and 
containing  no  defect  discoverable  by  the  eye,  smell,  or  taste.*^*  A 
sleeping  car  company  is  not  a  common  carrier  unless  so  declared 
by  constitutional  or  statutory  provision.*^**  Under  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Act,  section  1,  as  amended  by  the  Hepburn  Act  June 
29,  1906,  the  term  "  common  carrier  "  as  used  in  that  act  includes 
sleeping  car  companies.*^ 

§  25.  Pipe  line  for  carrying  oil. 

Under  section  1  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act,  as  amended 
by  the  act  June  29,  1906,  pipe  lines  for  the  transportation  of  oil 
or  other  commodity,  except  water  and  except  natural  and  artificial 

position  in  her  berth  while  the  car  is  burg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Miss.  8,  48  Am. 

in  rapid  motion.     Smith  v.  Canadian  Rep.    74;    Airey    v.    Pullman    Palace 

Pac.  R.  Co.   (Can.),  34  N.  S.  22.  Car  Co.,  50  La.  Ann,  648,  23  So.  512. 

44.  McKeon     v.     Chicago,    etc.,    R.  45.  Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Per- 

Co.,  64  Wis.  477,  35  L.  R.  A.  252,  69  kins,  21  Tex.  Civ.  App.  508,  52  S.  W. 

N.  W.  175,  2  Chic.  L.  J.  Wkly.  175.  124. 

Duty  to  awaken  passenger  in  time  to  45a.  Bigclow   v.   Maine   Central   R. 

leave   train:      Texas,    etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  Co.,  —  Me.  — ,  85  Ail.  396. 

Alexander    (Tex.     Civ.   App.),    30   S.  45b.  Pullman     Co.    v.     Linke,     203 

W.  1113;  Nichols  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Fed.  1017. 

Co.,  90   Mich.  204;   Nunn  v.  Georgia  45c.  Interstate  Commerce  Act,  §  1. 
P.  Co.,  71  Ga.  710;   Sevier  v.  Vicks- 


fQ  THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

gas,  aro  made  comnum  carriers  within  the  meaning  and  purposes  of 
that  act.  Statutes  recently  enacted  in  Kansas  and  Texas  declare  a 
pipe  line  to  be  a  coiumon  carrier.  The  power  of  the  State  to  make 
every  pipe  lino  a  common  carrier  if  it  engages  in  the  trans- 
portation of  oil  for  persons  other  than  the  owner  may  bo  ques- 
tioned. The  right  of  the  state  to  do  so  will,  doubtless,  be  asserted 
upon  the  strength  of  tlioso  authorities  which  establish  tlie  power 
of  the  State  to  regulate  the  business  of  grain  elevators  and  ware- 
houses,*^ and  hold  them  subject  to  statutory  legislation  requiring 
them  to  receive  and  store  grain  of  other  persons  oUered  at  lawful 
prices,  when  there  is  room  for  it,*''  and  authorities  sustaining  the 
power  of  the  State  to  declare  a  telegraph  company  a  common  car- 
rier," which  are  in  many  respects  analagous  cases.  The  fact 
that  private  pipe  lines  may  be  laid  across,  or  in  some  instances 
alonjr,  public  highways,  with  tlie  consent  of  the  local  authorities, 
or  along  the  right  of  way  of  interstate  railroads,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  railroad  companies,  does  not  impress  upon  them  any 
obligation  to  become  common  carriers.*^*  That  pipe  line  compan- 
ies building  interstate  lines  on  private  rights  of  way  were  incor- 
porated as  common  carriers  under  the  laws  of  the  states  where 
organized  does  not  make  them  such  in  other  states,  nor  prevent 
them  from  selling  their  lines  in  such  states,  with  the  right  in  the 
purchaser  to  use  them  exclusively  in  its  private  business.* 


48b 


§  26.  Wagoners. 

It  has  been  held  that  a  wagoner  who,  upon  his  own  request, 
carries  goods  for  hire,  is  a  common  carrier,  whether  the  trans- 
portation be  his  principal  and  direct  business,  or  an  occasional 
and  incidental  employment,  even  where  the  principal  business 
of  the  wagoner  is  that  of  a  farmer.**    But  the  weight  of  authority 

46.  Budd  V.  New  York,  143  U.  S.  48,  Kirby  v.  Western  Union  Tel. 
517,  36  L.  Ed.  247,  45  Alb.  L.  J.  354,  Co.,  7  S.  D.  623,155  N.  W.  37,  30  L. 
36  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  31,  12  Sup.      R.  A.  621. 

Ci:.  Rep.  468,  5  Am.  Ry.  &  Corp.  Rep.  48a.  Prairie    Oil     &     Ga3     Co.     v. 

610,  4  Inters.  Com.  Rep.  45;  Munn  v.  United  States   (U.  S.  Com.  Ct.),  204 

Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113.  Fed.  798. 

47.  Brass  v.  North  Dakota,  153  U.  48b.  Prairie  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  v. 
B.   891,   38   L.   Ed.   757,   14   Sup.   Ct.  United  States,  supra. 

Rep.  857,  4  Inters.  Com.  Rep.  670.  49.  Gordon    t.    Hutchinson,    1    W« 


C»MMON  CARRIERS. 


71 


seems  to  favor  the  contrary  position,  that  an  occasional  under- 
taking to  carry  goods  will  not  make  a  person  a  common  carrier, 
but  that  the  business  must  be  habitual,  not  casual.^  Where  the 
undertaking  to  carry  is  an  unauthorized  act  of  the  driver  or 
agent  of  the  owner  of  the  wagon,  the  carrier  is  not  liable.^ 

§  27.  Carriers  by  river  craft. 

A  person  who  undertakes,  though  only  as  a  casual  employment 
pro  luLC  vice,  to  carry  by  river,  for  hire,  without  special  contract, 
incurs  the  responsibility  of  a  common  carrier.^^     This  rule  has 


and  S.  (Pa.)  2S5,  37  Am.  Dec.  464; 
Moses  V.  Norris,  4  N.  H.  304;  Moses 
V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  H.  71, 
55  Am.  Dec.  222;  Powers  v.  Daven- 
port, 7  Blackf.  (Ind.)  497,  43  Am. 
Dec.  100;  Chevalier  v.  Straham,  2 
Tex.  115,  47  Am.  Dec.  639,  wherein 
the  court  said  that  there  were  no 
grounds  in  reason  why  the  occasional 
carrier,  who  periodically,  in  every  re- 
curring year,  abandons  his  other  pur- 
suits  and  assumes  that  of  transport- 
ing goods  for  the  public,  should  be 
exempted  from  any  of  the  risks  in- 
curred by  those  who  make  the  carry- 
ing business  their  constant  or  prin- 
cipal occupation. 

50.  Fish  v.  Chapman,  2  Ga.  353, 
46  Am.  Dec.  393,  approved  in  Nugent 
V.  Smith,  1  C.  P.  Div.  27,  the  lead- 
ling  authority  sustaining  this  view, 
was  a  case  where  a  farmer  had  never 
held  himself  out  as  a  carrier  gener- 
ally, but  was  employed  by  the  plain- 
tiflf  to  carry  goods  which,  in  crossing 
a  stream  upon  the  way,  were  injured 
by  the  upsetting  of  the  wagon.  The 
court,  referring  to  the  case  of  Gordon 
V.  Hutchinson,  1  W.  &  S.  (Pa.) 
285,  37  Am.  Dec.  464,  says:  "This 
decision  no  doubt  contemplates  an  un- 
dertaking to  carry  generally  without 
a  special  contract,  and  does  not  deny 


to  the  undertaker  the  right  to  define 
his  liability.  There  are  cases  in 
Tennessee  and  New  Hampshire  which 
favor  the  Pennsylvania  rule,  but 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  that 
case  is  opposed  to  the  principles  of 
the  common  law,  and  its  rule  wholly 
inexpedient."  In  Harrison  v.  Roy,  39 
Miss.  396,  while,  imder  the  circum- 
stances of  that  case,  it  was  held  that 
the  wagoner  had  made  himself  liable 
as  a  common  carrier,  the  court  said 
that,  if  the  transaction  had  been  a 
mere  isolated  undertaking,  such  as 
he  had  not  been  in  the  habit  of  en- 
gaging in,  and  which  was  foreign  to 
his  regular  and  usual  business,  there 
would  have  been  force  in  the  position 
that  he  could  not  be  so  held.  In 
Steinman  v.  Wilkins,  7  W.  &  S.  (Pa.) 
4G6,  42  Am.  Dec.  254,  it  was  held 
that  a  wagoner  was  not  a  common 
carrier  to  the  extent  of  rendering  him 
liable  for  a  refusal  to  carry. 

51.  Jenkins  v.  Pickett,  9  Yerg. 
(Tenn.)  480;  Sntterlee  v.  Groat,  1 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  272;  Haynie  v.  Bay- 
lor, 18  Tex.  498. 

52.  Moses  v.  Bcttis,  4  Heisk. 
(Tenn.)  661,  13  Am.  Rep.  1;  Craig 
V.  Childress,  Peck  (Tenn.),  270,  14 
Am.  Dec.  751;  Johnson  v.  Friar,  4 
Yerg.    (Tenn.)    48;    Gordon     v.     Bu- 


^2  TUE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

been  mnintiiinod  in  Tennessee,  New  Hampsliire  and  Soutli  Caro- 
lina as  to  carriers  by  river  craft,  but,  as  to  carriers  by  land  tbo 
rule  bas  been  held  to  bo  tbo  same  as  at  common  law."  But,  in 
!New  York,  it  bas  been  held  that  the  owner  of  a  sloop  specially 
eniployed  to  make  a  trip,  for  a  specified  compensation,  is  not 
tlieroby  known  to  be  a  connnon  carrier  and  that  tlie  owner  of  a 
canal  boat,  generally  used  only  in  transporting  freight  for  him- 
self, applying  to  a  common  carrier,  who  has  knoweldge  of  the 
facts,  and  receiving  a  load  of  freight,  does  not  thereby  becomo 
liable  as  a  common  carrier." 


§  23.  Truckmen,  freightmen,  draymen,  cartmen,  and  porters. 

Wagoners  and  teamsters,  whose  business  it  is  to  carry  on  hire 
goods  and  chattels  from  one  locality  to  another,  common  porters, 
drivers,  truckmen,  freightmen,  draymen,  and  cartmen,  whether 
their  employment  be  carried  on  from  town  to  town,  or  from  one 
part  of  a  town  to  another  are  common  carriers.^    It  is  not  neces- 


chanan,  5  Ycrg.  (Tenn.)  71;  Turney 
T.  Wilson,  7  Yerg.  (Tenn.)  340,  27 
Am.  Dec.  515;  Moses  v.  K orris,  4  N. 
ii.  304;  Elkins  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  3  Fost.  (N.  H.)  275;  McClure 
V.  Hammond,  1  Bay  (S.  C),  99;  Mc- 
Clure V.  Richardson,  Rice  (S.  C), 
215. 

53.  Walker  v.  Skipwith,  Meigs 
(Tenn.),  502.  See  §  26  as  to 
"  wagoners." 

54.  Allen  v.  Sackrider,  37  N.  Y. 
341;  Fish  V.  Clark,  49  N.  Y.  122,  affg. 
2  Lans.    (N.  Y.)    176. 

65.  Richards  v.  Westcott,  2  Bosw. 
(N.  Y.)  569  (city  expressman); 
Jackson  Architectural  Iron  Works  v. 
Hurlburt,  158  N.  Y.  34,  52  N.  E.  665, 
70  Am.  St.  Rep.  432,  affg.  judg.  15 
Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  93,  36  N.  Y.  Supp. 
808,  71  St.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  830;  Ben- 
son V.  Oregon  Short  Line  R.  Co.,  99 
Pac.  1072  (Utah,  1909),  a  dray- 
man who  18  directed  by  a  shipper  to 
take    her    goods    to    the    depot    and 


ship  them  is  a  common  carrier.  Story 
Bailm.  §  496;  Arkadelphia  Milling 
Co.  V.  Smoker  Mercliaudise  Co.,  139 
S.  W.  6S0  (Ark.  1911),  a  drayage 
company;  Johnson  E.xpress  Co.  v. 
City  of  Chicago,  13G  111.  App.  368 
(1907),  a  parcel  delivery  company; 
Robertson  v.  Kennedy,  2  Dana  (Ky.), 
431,  26  Am.  Dec.  466,  so  held  of  the 
driver  of  a  slide  with  an  ox  team; 
Powers  V.  Davenport,  7  Blackf. 
(Ind.)  497,  43  Am.  Dec.  100;  Mc- 
Henry  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
4  Har.  (Del.)  448;  Model  Clothing 
Co,  V,  Columbia  Transfer  Co.,  139  S. 
W.  242  (Mo.  App.  1911),  a  drayage 
and  transfer  company;  Collier  v. 
Langan  &  Taylor  Storage  &  Moving 
Co.,  127  S.  W.  435  (Mo.  App.  1910)  ; 
Campbell  v.  Morse,  Harper  (S.  C), 
468;  Gordon  v.  Hutchinson,  1  W.  & 
S.  (Pa.)  285;  Lacky  v.  McDermott, 
8  S.  &  R.  (Pa.)  500;  2  Kent's  Cora. 
598  n.  The  mode  of  transporting  is 
immaterial.       Where    the    defendant 


COMMON  CARRIERS.  75 

sary  that  the  exclusive  business  of  the  party  should  be  carrying. 
Where  one,  whose  principal  pursuit  is  farming,  solicits  goods  to 
carry  to  the  market  town  in  his  wagon  on  certain  convenient 
occasions,  he  makes  himgelf  a  common  carrier  for  those  who 
employ  him.^  A  company  chartered  to  do  a  general  warehouse 
and  storage  business,  but  engaging  as  well  in  moving  household 
goods  and  advertising  that  business,  in  a  way  to  solicit  custom  from 
the  general  public,  is  a  common  carrier,  notwithstanding  it  claims 
the  right  to  select  those  whom  it  will  serve,  and  its  custom  is  to  dis- 
criminate, accepting  some  and  rejecting  others  as  it  may  choose.^®* 
The  transportation  must  be  in  pursuance  of  some  carriage  voca- 
tion which  the  carrier  exercises;  but  one  may  be  a  common  car- 
rier, who  has  no  fixed  termini,  but  leaves  the  course  of  trans- 
portation in  each  case  to  depend  upon  his  customer's  wish." 
Genei'al  truckmen  who  describe  their  specialty  to  be  "heavy  ma- 
chinery," which  they  transport  by  wagons  and  trucks  adapted  to 
such  purpose,  and  who  make  no  discrimination  as  to  customers, 
and  do  not  refuse  to  move  anything  on  request,  if  reasonably 
paid,  are  common  carriers  and  liable  as  such,  although  a  special 
price  is  fixed  by  agreement  in  each  case.^^  But  a  person  truck- 
ing goods  for  particular  customers  at  prices  fixed  in  each  case 
by  special  contract  is  not  a  common  carrier  so  as  to  be  liable 
as  an  insurer  of  the  goods/'  A  person  engaged  in  the  business 
of  carrying  freight  in  wagons  from  depots  to  other  places,  and 
of  delivering  packages  for  all  persons  who  choose  to  employ 
him,  is  a  common  carrier.®^  One  who,  under  a  license  so  to  do, 
hauls  goods  within  the  limits  of  a  city  for  any  person  desiring  his 

was  a  lighterman,  who  carried  gooda  870,  871;  Staub  v.  Kendriek,  121  Ind. 

between   wharves   and   ships   for   any  226,  6  L.   R.  A,   619. 

persons  who  chose  to  employ  him,  he  56a.  Lloyd    v.    Haugh    &    Keenan 

was  held  liable  as  a  common  carrier.  Storage  &  Transfer  Co.,  223  Pa.  148, 

Ingate    v.    Christie,    3    C.    &    K.    Gl.  72  Atl.  516. 

Compare    Moses    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.  57.  Alkali  Co.  v.  Johnson,  L.  R.  7 

Co.,  24  N.  H.  71;  Brind  v.  Dale,  8  C.  Exch.  267,  L.  R.  9  Exch.  3.38. 

A  P.  207.  58.  Jackson       Architectural       Iron 

56.  Jackson       Architectural       Iron  Works  v.  Hurlbut,  siipra. 

Works   V.   Hurlbut,   supra;   Chevalier  59.  Faucher    v.    Wilson,    68    N.    H. 

V.  Strahan,  2  Tex.   115,  47   Am.  Dec.  338,  38  Atl.  1002,  39  L.  R.  A.  431. 

639;   Harri^'on  v.  Roy,  39  Miss.  396;  60.  Cayo  v.  Pool's  Assignee,   55  S. 

Bcbouler,  Bailm.  355,  356;  An^.  Carr.  W.   (Ky.)    887,  49  L.  R.  A.  251. 


74 


THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 


services,  is  a  coiuinou  oiirrier;  and,  while  bo  cannot  be  compelled 
to  go  beyond  bis  territorial  liniiU,  yd,  if  bo  uudertiikes  so  Lo  do, 
Lo  is  liable  as  a  eoninion  carrier  for  tbe  whole  distance.*'  It  is 
eometimes  a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury  whether,  under  the 
circumstances  of  a  c:Lse  the  person  sought  to  be  charged  witli 
liability  is  a  common  carrier  or  uot.^"  A  truckman,  whether  or 
not  a  common  carrier,  is  liable  for  failure  to  use  ordinary  care 
in  unloading  goods  moved  by  bim."^^  One  engaged  in  trucking 
goods  for  particular  customers,  at  prices  fixed  in  each  case  by 
special  contract,  is  bound  only  to  exercise  reasonable  care  in 
respect  to  the  goods.^-''  A  regular  tariff  of  charges  is  not  essen- 
tial to  create  a  truckman  a  common  carrier. ''^° 

§  29.  Owners  and  masters  of  ships  and  steamboats  or  vessels. 

The  master  and  owner  of  a  general  ship,  or  steam  vessel,  carry- 
ing goods  for  hire  in  internal,  coasting  or  foreign  commerce,  is 
a  common  carrier  with  tbe  liability  of  an  insurer  against  losses, 
except  from  irresistible   causes,   as  tbe  act  of  God   and  public 


61.  Farley  v.  Lavary,  107  Ky.  523, 
21  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1252,  47  L.  R.  A. 
383,  54  S.  W.  840.  But  a  carrier  who 
takes  goods  from  a  railroad  cilice  at 
the  end  of  its  line  and  transfers  them 
to  a  connecting  line  is  not  a  common 
carrier,  but  a  mere  agent  of  the  first 
Toad,  though  he  is  in  the  habit  of 
advancing  its  freight  charges  and  col- 
lecting them,  with  his  own  transfer 
charges,  from  the  connecting  carrier. 
Hooper  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27 
Wis.  81,  9  Am.  Rep.  439.  Compare 
Parmalee  v.  Lowitz,  74  111.  116,  24 
Am.   Rep.  276. 

62.  Schloss  V.  Wood,  11  Colo.  287, 
17  Pac.  910,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
492. 

Furniture  mover  not  a  common 
carrier.— Where  defendant  corpora- 
tion engaged  in  furniture  moving,  con- 
tracted to  move  plaintiffs  furniture 
for  a  certain  price,  and  its  agent 
stated  that  defendant  had  previously 


safely  moved  furniture  and  bric-a- 
brac  for  others,  was  responsible,  and 
would  move  plaintifi"'s  furniture  with 
care  and  deliver  it  safely,  defendant 
did  not  thereby  assume  the  responsi- 
bility of  a  common  carrier,  but  was 
only  liable  as  a  bailee  for  hire  for 
negligence  of  its  servants.  Jaminet 
V.  American  Storage  &  Moving  Co., 
109  Mo.  App.  257,  84  S.  W.  128. 

62a.  Jackson  Architectural  Iron 
Works  V.  Hurlbut,  158  N.  Y.  34,  52 
N.  E.  665,  70  Am.  St.  Rep.  432,  aflTg. 
judg.  15  Misc.  Rep.  93,  36  N.  Y.  Supp. 
808.  The  question  as  to  contributory, 
negligence,  in  that  plaintiff  ordered 
the  machinery  to  be  unloaded  at  once, 
on  its  delivery  after  dark,  is  for  the 
jury.     Id. 

e2b.  Faucher  v.  Wilson,  68  N.  H. 
338,  38  Atl.  1002,  39  L.  R.  A.  431. 

62c.  Jackson      Architectural      Iron 
Works  V.  Hurlbut,  supra. 


COMMON  CARRIERS. 


75 


enemies."  Wlien  engaged  in  the  coasting  trade,  or  upon  the 
lakes,  bays  and  sounds,  transporting  goods  from  one  port  to 
another  for  the  general  public,  for  hire,  steamboats  or  vessels 
are    common  carriers."      Likewise,    steamboats    upon    navigable 


63.  Liverpool  &  G.  W.  Steam.  Co. 
V.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  129  U.  S.  397, 
32  L.  Ed.  788,  5  R.  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J. 
435,  39  Alb.  L.  J.  373,  9  Sup.  Ct. 
Rep.  469;  Hall  v.  Connecticut  River 
Steamboat  Co.,  13  Conn.  324;  Peters 
V.  Rylands,  20  Pa.  St.  497;  Tucker- 
man  V.  Brown,  17  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  191; 
Saltus  V.  Everett,  20  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
267;    Jencks   v.    Coleman,    2    Sumner 

(U.  S.),  221;  Dibble  v.  Brown,  12 
Ga.  217;  The  Emily,  5  Kan.  645; 
Wilsons  V.  Hamilton,  4  Ohio  St.  722; 
Dunseth  v.  Wade,  2  Scam.  (111.)  285; 
King  V.  Shepherd,  3  Story  (U.  S.), 
349;    Hastings    v.    Pepper,    28    Mass. 

(11  Pick.)  41;  Gage  v,  Tirrell,  9 
Allen  (Mass.),  299;  Clark  v.  Bam- 
well,  12  How.  (U.  S.)  272;  The  Ni- 
agara V.  Cordes,  21  How.  (U.  S.)  7; 
The  Delaware,  14  Wall  (U.  S.)  579; 
The  Maggie  Hammond,  9  Wall.  (U. 
S.)  435;  Garrison  v.  Memphis  Ins. 
Co.,  19  How.  (U.  S.)  312;  The  Lady 
Pike,  21  Wall.  (U.  S.)  14;  Williams 
V.  Grant,  1  Conn.  487,  7  Am.  Dec 
235;  Clark  v.  Richards,  1  Conn.  .54; 
Richards  v.  Gilbert,  5  Day  (Conn.), 
415;  Bennet  v.  Filyaw,  1  Fla.  451; 
Dwight  V.  Brewster,  1  Pick.  (Mass.) 
60,  11  Am.  Dec.  133;  Gilmore  v.  Car- 
man, 1  Smed.  &  M.  (Miss.)  279,  40 
Am.  Dec.  96;  Colt  v.  McMechen,  6 
Johns.  (N.  Y.)  160,  5  Am.  Dec.  200; 
SchiefTelin  v.  Harvey,  6  Johns.  (N. 
Y.)  170,  6  Am.  Dec.  200;  Bowman  v. 
Toall.  23  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  306,  35  Am. 
Dec.  502;  Bell  v.  Reed,  4  Binn.  (Pa.) 
127,  5  Am.  Rep.  398;  Miles  v.  James, 
1  McCord  L.    (S.  C.)    157;   Cohen  v. 


Hume,  1  McCord  L.  (S,  C.)  439; 
Murphy  v.  Staton,  3  Munf.  (Va.) 
239;  Steele  v.  McTyer,  31  Ala.  667, 
70  Am.  Dec.  516;  Nugent  v.  Smith, 
1  C.  P.  Div.  423;  Morse  v.  Slue,  1 
Vent.  190;  Boson  v.  Sanford,  2  Salk. 
440;  Laveroni  v.  Drury,  8  Exch.  166, 
16  Eng,  L.  &  E.  510;  Coggs  v.  Ber- 
nard, 2  Ld.  Raym.  909.  Compare 
Smith  V.  Pierce,  1  La.  349;  Adams  v. 
New  Orleans  Tow-boat  Co.,  11  La.  46; 
Walston  V.  Myers,  5  Jones  (N.  C.) 
174;  White  v.  The  Mary  Ann,  6  Cal. 
462;  Ashmore  v.  Penn.  Steam  Tow 
Co.,  28  N.  J.  L.  180,  and  cases  cited 
§  10. 

64.  Hale  v.  New  Jersey  Steam 
Nav.  Co.,  15  Conn.  539,  39  Am.  Dec. 
398;  Powell  V.  Myers,  26  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)  591;  Pardee  v.  Drew,  25  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  459;  Allen  v.  Sewall,  2 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  327,  6  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
335;  Elliott  v.  Rossell,  10  Johns.  (N. 
Y.)  1,  6  Am.  Dec.  306;  Garrison  v. 
Memphis  Ins.  Co.,  19  How.  (N.  Y.) 
312;  Kemp  v.  Coughtry,  11  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  107;  Gage  v.  Tirrell,  9  Al- 
len (Mass.),  299;  Crosby  v.  Fitch, 
12  Conn.  410,  31  Am.  Dec.  745; 
Schooner  Reeside,  2  Sumn.  (U.  S.) 
567;  Gordon  v.  Little,  8  S.  &  R.  (Pa.) 
533,  11  Am.  Dec.  632;  McClure  v. 
Hammond,  1  Bay  (S.  C),  99,  1  Am. 
Dec.  598;  Sch'r  Emma  Johnson,  1 
Spr.  (U.  S.)  527;  Hastings  v.  Pepper, 
28  Mass.  (11  Pick.)  41;  Parker  v. 
Flagg,  26  Me.  181,  45  Am.  Dec.  101; 
Oakey  v.  Russell,  18  Mar.  (La.)  58; 
The  Propeller  Commerce,  1  Black  (U. 
S.),  582;   The  Niagara  v.  Cordes,  21 


76  THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

rivers,   which  carry  both   passengers   and   freight,   are  liable  as 
common  carriers,   as   to  such   freight  and   the  baggage  of  their 
passengers. ""     But,  an  ocean  steamship  company  is  not  responsi- 
ble, as  a  common  carrier  or  an  innkeeper,  for  the  baggage  of  a 
passenger,   which   he  keeps   in  his  own  possession   in  his   state- 
room,  but  must  answer   in  such  cases,   for  its  negligence,   like 
other  bailees  for  hire."     And  a  vessel  chartered  to  transport  a 
specific  cargo  is  not  a  common  carrier."     Where  the  vessel   is 
chartered  by  another  who  is  using  it  for  transportation  generally, 
the  party  chartering  and  in  control  of  the  vessel,  and  not  the 
owner,  is  liable;  and  when  the  vessel  is  run  by  the  master  on 
shares,  the  owner  is  not  liable  merely  by  virtue  of  his  owner- 
ship, for  goods  entrusted  to  tlie  master  for  transportation.^     A 
vessel  under  charter^  which  was  under  no  obligation  to  take  what- 
ever goods  might  be  tendered,  and  not  running  on  any  particulai 
schedule  or  between  particular  places,  is  not  a  common  carrier  in 
the  legal  sense  of  the  term,  but  a  private  carrier  only.^^*    Where 
two  corporations  created  by  different  states  exist  under  the  same 
name,  one  maintaining  a  steamboat  line  as  a  common  carrier  and 
the  other  merely  owning  land  and  wharves,  the  latter  will  not  be 

How.   (U.  S.)  26;  Clark  v.  Barnwell,  (Tenn.),  452;  Swindler  v.  Hilliard,  2 

12    How.     (U.    S.)     272;    The    Com-  Rich.    (S.  C.)   286,  45  Am.  Dec.  732; 

mander-in-chief,  1  Wall.    (U.  S.)    51.  HoUister  v.   Nowlen,    19  Wend.    (N. 

Compare  Aymar  v.  Astor,  6  Cow.   (N.  Y.)    234;   Cole  v.  Goodwin,  19  Wend. 

Y.)    266;    Crosby  v.   Fitch,   12   Conn.  {N.  Y.)   251;  Hale  v.  N.  J.  Nav.  Co., 

410,  31  Am.  Dec.  745,  and  cases  cited  15    Conn.    539;    Jones   v.    Pitcher,    3' 

§   19.  Stew.  &  P.    (Ala.)    135,  24  Am.  Dec. 

65.  Citizens'    Bank    v.    The    Nan-  716;   Sprowl  v.  Kellar,  4  Stew.  &  P. 

tucket  S.  B.  Co.,  2  Story  (U.  S.),  16;  (Ala.)    382. 

McGregor    v.    Kilgore,    6    Ohio,    358,  66.  American      Steamship    Co.      v. 

27  Am.  Dec.  260;   Bowman  v.  Hilton,  Bryan,  83   Pa.   St.  446. 

11  Ohio,  303;   McArthur  v.  Sears,  21  67.  The  Dan    (D.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y.), 

Wend.     (N.     Y.)      190;     Dunseth     v.  40  Fed.  Rep.  691. 

Wade,   2   Scam.    (HI.)    285;    Hart  v.  68.  Tuckerman  v.  Brown,  17  Barb. 

Allen,  2  Watts    (Pa.),  114;   Barring-  (N.  Y.)    191;  Thompson  v.  Hamilton, 

ton  V.  McShane,  2  Watts   (Pa.),  443,  12   Pick.    (Mass.)    425,   23   Am.   Dec. 

27  Am.  Dec.  321;  Warden  v.  Greer,  6  619;      Cutler     v.     Winsor,     6     Pick. 

Watts    (Pa.),   424;    Pardee   v.   Drew,  (Ma-ss.)    335,    3    Kent's     Com,     I'S; 

25  Wend.   (N.  Y.)   459;  Porterfield  v.  Manter  v.  Holmes,  10  Mete.    (Mass.) 

Humphreys,  8  Humph.    (Tenn.)    497;  402. 

Kirtland    v.     Montgomery,     1     Swan  68a.  The  Pawnee,  205  Fed.  333. 


COMMON  CARRIERS. 


77 


liable  as  a  common  carrier  for  property  delivered  to  the  fonner 
for  transportation,  unless  it  held  itself  out  to  the  general  public 
as  a  common  carrier  or  permitted  the  other  company  to  use  its 
corporate  name.^*'' 

§  30.  Lightermen  and  hoymen. 

A  lighterman  who  carries  goods  between  wharves  and  ships 
f»r  any  persons  who  choose  to  employ  him  is  liable  as  a  common 
carrier. ^°  Under  the  rule  of  the  American  courts  of  admiralty 
a  lighter  hired  exclusively  to  convey  the  goods  of  one  person  to  a 
particular  place  for  an  agreed  compensation  is  not  a  common 
carrier  with  respect  to  such  goods,  but  a  private  carrier,  and 
liable  only  as  a  bailee  for  hire.^*** 

§  31.  Owners  of  a  toll  bridge. 

The  owner  of  a  toll  bridge  is  not  a  common  carrier,  for,  in 
general  he  has  no  possession  or  control  over  the  goods.  He  is 
bound  to  keep  the  bridge  in  proper  condition  for  the  safe  passage 
of  passengers  and  goods,  and  is  liable  only  for  negligence  in  so 
keeping  it.*^  A  bridge  company  owning  no  freight  cars,  which 
solicits  freight  for  railway  companies  who  will  fumisii  the  cars 
and  over  whose  lines  the  freight  is  to  go,  and  merely  transfers 
such  cars  over  its  bridge  to  the  railway  companies  furnishing 
them,  charging  for  its  service  its  regular  bridge  toll,  but  making 
no  charge  for  transporting  the  freight  contained  or  carried  in 
the  cars,   is  not  a  common  carrier  of  such  interstate  freight.™ 

68b.  Reed    v.    Wilmington    Steam-  of  the  stage  or  the  car  is  under  the 

boat  Co.,  1  Marv.   (Del.  Super.)    193,  driver  or  the  engineer.    But  in  croas- 

40  Atl.  955.  ing  a  bridge  the  acts  and  conduct  of 

68c.  Ingate  v.  Cliristie,  3   C.  &  K.  a  passenger  are  regulated  by  his  own 

61.    See  §  28,  note  55,  supra.  will.      .      .      .      He   is   more   like   the 

68d.  The  Wildenfels,  161  Fed.  864;  owner    of    a   turnpike    road,    and    his 

The  Rover,   161    Fed.  864.     See,  also,  liabilities  are  analogous." 

Fish  V.  Chapman,  2  Ga.  353,  46  Am.  70.  Kentucky    &    I.    Bridge    Co.    v. 

Dec.  393.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  (C.  C.  D.  Ky.), 

69.  Grigsby    v.    Cliappell,    5    Rich.  37   Fed.  Rep.  587,  2  L.  R.  A.  2S9,  2 
(8.  C.)   443,  wherein  Evans,  J.,  says:  Inters.  Com.  Rep.  351. 
"  He  is  not  like  a  stage  owner  or  a  The  franchises  and  powers  of  build- 
railroad  company.     In  these  cases  the  ing,    maintaining,    and    operating    a 
passenger   i«   pasHive,  the  government  bridge  and  approaches,  designated  as 


78  THE    LAW    OF    CARRIEKS. 

In  an  notion  for  injuries  sustained  by  plaintiff  wliile  passing 
through  a  covered,  iinlighted  toll  bridge,  by  being  struck  by  a 
bicycle  rider  from  the  rear,  an  instruction  imposing  on  the  bridge 
company  tlio  duty  of  exercising  ordinary  care  only,  was  more 
favorable  to  it  than  the  law  authorized ;  such  a  corporation  being 
requiretl  to  exercise  a  degree  of  care  more  nearly  akin  to  that 
required  of  a  carrier  of  passengers.^'*^  Where  a  railway  company 
has  built  a  bridge  with  a  draw,  and  under  a  contract  with  the 
city  had  turned  over  the  control  and  care  of  a  footpath  thereon 
to  the  city,  and  the  company  gave  the  ordinary  signals,  and 
opened  the  draw  in  a  proper  manner,  it  was  not  guilty  of  negli- 
gence resulting  in  the  death  of  a  boy  who  walked  off  the  draw 
into  the  water  and  was  drowned.^""  A  toll  bridge  company, 
though  not  a  common  carrier,  is  under  the  duty  to  keep  its  bridge 
in  a  reasonably  safe  condition  for  travel,  and  is  only  liable  for 
negligence  in  failing  to  so  keep  it.''°°  While  not  the  insurer 
of  the  person  or  property  of  their  customers,  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
proprietors  of  a  toll  bridge  to  exercise  ordinary  care  in  its  con- 
struction and  maintenance,  and  to  make  reasonable  provision  to 
guard  against  injuries  likely  to  be  sustained  in  the  ordinary 
use  of  the  bridge,  so  that,  where  guard  rails  are  reasonably  neces- 
sary, the  owner  must  construct  and  maintain  them."^ 

§  32.  Canal  companies. 

A  company  maintaining  for  their  own  profit  a  canal,  open  to 

its  terminal  facilities,  do  not,  in  and  all  freight  transported  by  it  over  the 

of    themselves    constitute    the    bridge  bridge.      And   as   to   all    such    traffic, 

company  a  common  carrier  of  prop-  it,  and  not  the  bridge  company,  must 

erty;    nor  do  they,  by  any  clear   im-  be   regarded   as   the   common   carrier, 

plication,     confer    upon    it    authority  Id. 

"to  equip  its  road,  and  to  transport  70a.  Conowingo  Bridge  Co.  v.  Hed- 

goods     and     passengers   thereon,    and  rick,  95  Md.  669,  53  .\tl.  430. 

charge  compensation  therefor."    Id.  70b.  Desure    v.    New    York    Cent., 

Where  a  railroad  company,  by  con-  etc.,   R.    Co.,    94   App.    Div.    (N.   Y.) 

tract  with  a  bridge  company,  acquires  251,  87  N.  Y.  Supp.  988. 

the   right  to   use   a   bridge,   with   its  70c.  Gibler  v.  Terminal  R.  Ass'n  of 

approaches,  for  its  engines,  cars  and  St.  Louis,  203  Mo.  208,  101  S.  W.  37. 

trains,  it  is  regarded,  under  the  Act  70d.  Dardanelle  Pontoon   Bridge   & 

to   Regulate   Commerce,    §    1,   as   the  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Groom  (Ark.),  129  S. 

owner  or  operator  of  the  bridge  and  W.  280. 
aprproachee,  for  the  time  being,  as  to 


CX)MMON  CARRIERS.  79 

the  public  for  navigation  upon  the  payment  of  tolls,   is  not  a 
common  carrier,  and  is  only  bound  to  take  reasonable  care  that 
its  canal  may  be  navigated  without  danger;   and  it  is  not  re- 
sponsible for  accidents  which  do  not  arise  from  the  want  of  such 
reasonable  care.     It  is  not,  like  a  common  carrier,  subjected  to 
the  responsibility  of  an  insurer.^^    The  Pennsylvania  Canal  Com- 
pany is  neither  liable  as  a  common  carrier  nor  as  an  insurer. 
As  owner  and  operator  of  a  public  water  highway,  it  is  bound 
to  so  maintain  and  manage  the  canal  that  it  can  be  used  with 
reasonable  safety  and  convenience  by  the  public,  but  it  is  not 
liable  for  an   injury   r^Bulting  from   an  unknown   obstruction, 
which  could  not  have  been  guarded  against  without  the  exercise  of 
extraordinary  and  imreasonable  care.'^     An  incorporated  canal 
company,  whose  business  is  to  maintain  and  keep  open  a  water- 
way for  the  use  of  the  public,  taking  tolls  for  such  use,  is  not 
liable  as  a  common  carrier,  in  the  absence  of  special  contract, 
for  the  loss  of  timber  from  rafts  transported  by  it  and  lying  in 
the  basins  or  in  the  canal  itself,  by  theft,  sinking  or  otherwise." 
A  complaint  in  an  action  against  a  canal  company,  which  alleged 
that  defendant  agreed  to  tow  plaintiff's  schooner  through  the  canal 
by  defendant's  tug,  and  negligently,  wrongfully,  and  carelessly 
obstructed  its  said  canal  by  a  large  barge  which  it  owned,  and 
negligently,  carelessly,  and  wrongfully  caused  plaintiff's  schooner 
to  be  towed  by  its  tug  down  and  upon  the  said  barge,  and  to 
run  foul  of  and  to  strike  against  said  barge,  and  by  reason  of  the 
obstruction  of  the  canal   and  the  said  defendant's  towing  said 
schooner  down  and  upon  said  barge  said  schooner  was  greatly 

71.  Exchange     Fire     Ins.     Co.     v.  tion   of  them   or   i;heir   cargoes,   and, 

Delaware  &  Hudson  Canal  Co.,  25  N.  therefore,  there  is  no  reason  for  put- 

Y.  Super.  Ct.   (10  Boaw.)    180;   Weit-  ting  them  on  a  footing  with  common 

ner  v.  Delaware  &  Hudson  Canal  Co.,  carriers  so  as  to  render  them   insur- 

27   N.   Y.   Super.   Ct.    (4   Rob.)    234.  ers.     No   case   has   been   cited   which 

"There  is  no  consideration  of  public  goes  to  this  length."     Robertson,  J., 

policy  to  enlarge  the  liability  of  the  in  case  first  cited,  supra. 

owners    of    a    canal    beyond    the    em-  72.  Pennsylvania      Canal      Co.      v. 

ployment     of     reasonable     diligence.  Burd,  90   Pa.   St.   281,   35   Am.  Rep. 

Unless   they   owned   the   canal    boats,  659. 

they  could  reap  no  real  benefit  from  73.  Watts  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  Canal 

either  the  simulated  or  real   destrue-  Co.,  fi4  Ga.  88,  37  Am.  Rep.  53. 


so 


THE    LAW    Ob'    CARRiERH. 


damaged,  sufficiontlj  cliarges  negligence  in  mooring  the  barge  as 
the  basis  of  plaiutitl's  doniaud.'^  A  railroad  company,  altJiough 
having  the  right  under  state  authority  to  erect  an  abutment  and 
pier  for  a  bridge  over  a  public  canal,  if  it  maintains  the  same 
60  as  to  create  hidden  or  dangerous  obstructions  to  navigation 
and  to  cause  injury  to  crafts  rightfully  using  the  canal,  is  liable 
for  such  injury."**  "WTiere  the  undisputed  evidence  discloses  a 
special  injury  to  a  person  navigating  the  Schuylkill  canal,  from  a 
depletion  of  the  waters  therein,  that  question  need  not  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  jury."'= 

§  33.  Forwarding  merchants. 

A  forwarder  of  goods,  who  takes  upon  himself  all  the  expenses 
of  transportation,  for  which  he  receives  a  compensation  from 
the  owner,  but  who  has  no  concern  in  the  means  of  transportation, 
or  interest  in  the  freight,  is  not  a  common  carrier,  but  is  liable 
as  warehouseman.''*     He  is  not  an  insurer  of  the  safety  of  the 


73a.  Gillikin  &  Gaskell  t.  Lake 
Drummond  Canal  Co.,  147  N.  C.  39, 
60  S.  E.  654,  holding  also  that  a  barge 
negligently  moored  to  the  bank  of  a 
canal,  which  because  of  such  negli- 
gence floats  out  into  the  channel  of 
the  canal  causing  a  collision  with  a 
passing  vessel,  is  clearly  within  the 
meaning   of   the   term   "  obstruction." 

73b.  The  Nonpariel,   149   Fed.   521. 

A  railroad  company,  which  main- 
tained a  bridge  over  the  Erie  canal, 
with  piers  resting  on  submerged 
cribs  extending  beyond  the  piers  on 
the  canal  side,  which  were  not  pro- 
tected or  marked  in  any  way  to 
show  their  location,  is  liable  for  an 
injury  to  a  canal  boat  and  damage 
to  her  cargo  resulting  from  her  colli- 
eion  with  such  crib,  which  was  not 
apparent  to  her  master,  who  exer- 
cised ordinary  skill  and  care  in  her 
navigation.      Id. 

73c.  Gallagher  v.  City  of  Phila- 
delphia, 4  Pa.  vSuper.  Ct.  60. 


74.  Roberts  v.  Turner,  12  Joins. 
(N.  Y.)  232,  7  Am.  Dec.  311;  Platt 
v.  Hibbard,  7  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  497; 
Ackley  v.  Kellogg,  8  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
233;  Sage  v.  Gittner,  11  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  120;  Cowles  v.  Pointer,  26  Miss. 
253;  Maybin  v.  South  Carolina,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  8  Rich.  (S.  C.)  240,  64  Am. 
Dec.  753;  Denny  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  13  Gray  (Mass.),  487,  74  Am. 
Dec.  645;  Nichols  v.  Smith,  115 
Mass.  332;  Briggs  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  6  Allen  (Mass.),  246;  Brown  v. 
Dennison,  2  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  593; 
Stannard  v.  Prince,  64  N.  Y.  300; 
Teall  V.  Sears,  9  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  317; 
Wade  V.  Wheeler,  3  Lans.  (N.  Y.j 
201;    Story,  Bailm.  §   502. 

Forwarders. — Plaintiffs  were  for- 
warding merchants  at  T.,  and  were 
employed  by  defendant  to  ship  cer- 
tain marble  to  him  at  P.  The  mar- 
ble was  shipped  on  a  canal  boat, 
which  proceeded  on  the  way  as  far 
as   A.     Learning    that   it   was   there 


COMMON  CAERIERS. 


81 


goods  delivered  to  him  for  transportation,  but  is  liable  only  for 
hia  own  negligence  and  that  of  his  agents  or  servantsJ^  When  a 
person  or  corporation  act  both  as  forwarder  and  carrier,  their 
liabilitj  in  each  capacity  is  separate  and  distinct,  and  whether 
or  not  they  are  liable  as  carrier,  or  merely  as  forwarder, 
depends  upon  the  circumstances  and  conditlions  of  each 
particular    case.^®     A    custom    extending    over    a    great    num- 


delayed,  one  of  the  plaintiflFs  went  to 
A,  and  there  learned  that  the  only 
towboat  company  it  was  practicable 
to  employ  to  tow  the  boat  down  the 
H.  river  declined  to  take  the  boat 
unless  the  captain  would  pay  an  old 
bill,  and  would  pay  in  advance  the 
charge  for  towing.  The  captain  had 
gone  home  to  procure  the  money. 
Plaintiffs  thereupon  advanced  the 
money,  and  the  boat  was  put  into  a 
tow  and,  by  the  negligence  or  un- 
skillfulness  of  the  employes  of  the 
towboat  company,  was  injured  and 
Bunk.  In  an  action  to  recover  for 
advances  and  charges,  wherein  the 
loss  was  set  up  as  a  counterclaim,  it 
was  held  that  plaintiffs  acted  simply 
as  forwarders,  not  as  carriers;  that, 
by  the  transactions  at  A.  they  did 
not  assume  the  carriage  of  the  prop- 
erty; that  they  had  a  right,  and  it 
was  their  duty,  to  pay  the  advance 
charges,  and,  although  the  defendant 
was  not  liable  for  the  advance  on  the 
account  of  the  captain,  it  was  for  his 
benefit,  and  he  could  not  complain; 
and  that  as  the  loss  did  not  occur  by 
any  negligence  on  the  part  of  plain- 
tiffs, and  was  not  a  natural  or  ordi- 
nary consequence  of  any  act  of  theirs, 
they  were  not  liable  therefor.  Stan- 
nard  v.  Prince,  64  N.  Y.  300. 

75.  RobTta    v     Turner,    12    Johns. 
(N.  Y.)   232,  7  Am.  Dec.  311;  Chris- 
6 


tenson  v.  American  Express  Co.,  15 
Minn,  270,  2  Am.  Rep.  122;  Hooper 
V.  Wells,  27  Cal.  11,  85  Am.  Dec.  211. 

76.  Ladue  v.  Griffith,  25  N.  Y. 
364;  Blossom  v.  Griffin,  13  N.  Y. 
569,  67  Am.  Dec.  75;  Teall  v.  Sears, 
9  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  317;  Roberts  v. 
Turner,  12  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  232,  7  Am. 
Dec.  311;  Kreuder  v.  Woolcott,  1 
Hilt.  (N.  Y.)  223;  Clarke  v.  Needles, 
25  Pa.  St.  338;  Mellier  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  14  Mo.  App.  281; 
Parmalee  v.  Western  Transp.  Co.,  26 
Wis.  439;  Plantation  No.  4  v.  Hall, 
61  Me.  517;  Burroughs  v.  Norwich, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  Mas3.  26,  1  Am.  Rep. 
78;  Mercantile  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Chase,  1  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.),  115; 
Maybin  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  8 
Rich.  L.  (S.  C.)  240,  64  Am.  Dec. 
753. 

Proofs  that  persona  claiming  to  be 
only  forwarders,  ari'l  not  common  car- 
riers, are  engaged  in  the  business  of 
receiving  merchandise  from  a  rail- 
road company  at  its  terminus,  for  de- 
livery by  them  at  a  neighboring  town, 
and  that  they  have  an  office  at  such 
town,  where  they  collect  freight  bills 
and  solicit  business,  is  sufficient  ti 
warrant  a  submission  to  the  jury  of 
the  question  whether  they  are  com- 
mon carriers  or  not.  Schloss  v.  Wood, 
11  Colo.  287,  17  Pac.  910,  35  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  492. 


tjO  THK    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

l)er  of  ^'cars  between  parties,  showing  that  ono  of  the 
purtiesi  had  always  been  a  forwarder  and  not  a  carrier 
established  a  relationship  which  cannot  be  changed,  in  the  absence 
of  evidence  tliat  the  parties  had  entered  into  a  contract  different 
in  character  from  those  they  had  been  in  the  cnstom  of  entering 
iiiio  in  tlie  course  of  their  long  continued  dealings.^''*  Forward- 
ing companies  which  undertake  for  hire  to  transport  baggage  from 
it3  starting  point  to  its  final  destination,  such  transaction  being 
within  the  ordinary  course  of  their  business,  are  common  car- 
riers within  the  meaning  of  the  law."^  An  alleged  forwarding 
agent  who  receives  goods  for  transit,  issues  bills  of  lading,  and 
makes  contracts  in  his  own  name  with  a  railroad  company  for 
carriage,  is,  as  to  a  person  with  whom  it  contracts  for  the 
delivery  of  goods,  a  common  carrier,  and  liable  as  such."'®"  Even 
il  the  expressed  purpose  of  a  forwarding  company's  business  were 
material,  its  designation  that  it  was  a  "forwarder"  and  "dis- 
tributor" would  be  sufficient  to  estop  it  from  claiming  that  it 
was  a  mere  forwarder  and  not  a  common  carrier.^*'*  A  "forward- 
ing merchant"  or  "forwarder"  is  one  who  ships  or  sends  forward 
goods  for  others  to  their  destination  by  the  instrumentality  of 
third  persons  without  himself  incurring  the  liability  of  a  car- 
rier to  deliver  them,  and  neither  includes  a  consignor  shipping 
goods  nor  a  carrier  engaged  in  transporting  them.^** 

§  34.  Warehousemen  and  wharfingers. 

Warehousemen  and  wharfingers,  acting  strictly  as  such,  and 
confining  themselves  to  the  business  which  their  names  import, 
cannot  be  held  liable  as  common  carriers,  their  business  being 
simply  to  receive  and  store  goods  and  merchandise  or  to  ship  them 
to  their  destination,  for  hire.'"    But  when  a  person  or  company 

76a.  Barasch   v.   Richards,    113   N.  76€.  In  re  Emerson,  Marlow  &  Co., 

Y.  Supp.  1005.  199   Fed.   95,   117   C.   C.   A.   635;    199 

76b.  Bare  v.  American  Forwarding  Fed.  99,  117  C.  C.  A.  639. 

Co.,  146  111.  App.  338,  aflfd.  89  N.  E.  77.  Piatt  v.  Hibbard,   7  Cow.    (N. 

1021.  Y.)    497;   Knapp  v.  Curtis,   9  Wend. 

76c.  Ingram  v.  American  Forward-  (N.  Y.)    60:    Roberts  v.   Turner,   13 

ing  Co.,  162  111.  App.  476.  Johns.   (N.  Y.)   232,  7  Am.  Dec.  311; 

76d.  Lee    t.     Fidelity     Storage     *  Bouvier's  L.  Diet. 

Transfer  Co.,  51  Wash.  208,  98  Pac.  Wharfingers     who    describe     them- 

658.  selves  as  such  and  also  as  lightermen 


COMMON  CARRIERS. 


83 


is  at  the  same  time  a  warehouseman  or  wharfinger  and  carrier, 
if  the  deposit  of  the  goods  in  the  warehouse  or  on  the  wharf  is  a 
mere  accessorj  to  the  carriage,  in  other  words,  if  they  are  de- 
posited for  the  purpose  of  being  carried  without  further  orders, 
the  responsibility  of  the  carrier,  as  a  common  carrier,  begins 
from  the  time  they  are  received,  the  duty  to  transport  having 
actually  arisen.'^  Whenever  the  goods  are  not  to  be  shipped 
in  the  regular  course  of  business,  but  are  to  be  retained  to  await 
the  orders  of  the  shipper,  the  carrier's  liability  is  that  of  a  ware- 
houseman until  the  orders  are  given  to  forward  the  goods,  when 
his  liability  as  a  common  carrier  commences.'*     So,  when  any- 


and  carmen,  and  who  carry  goods 
from  tlieir  wharf  for  their  wharf  cus- 
tomers, but  not  for  strangers  unless 
at  arranged  prices  and  unless  they 
consider  the  business  good,  are  not 
carriers,  or,  at  least,  not  common  car- 
riers. Cliattock  V.  Bellamy,  54  L.  J. 
Qi.  B.  (N.  S.)  250,  15  Rep.  340. 
Compare  Having  v.  Todd,  1  Stark. 
72,  2  E.  C.  L.  37;  Cobban  v.  Downe,  5 
Esp.  N.  P.  41;  Briti-h  Columbia,  etc., 
Spar,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Nettleship,  L.  R.  3 
C.  P.  499. 

78.  Blossom  v.  Griffin,  13  N.  Y. 
569;  Ladue  v.  Griffith,  25  N.  Y.  364; 
Read  v.  Spaulding,  30  N.  Y.  630,  34 
N.  Y.  497,  47  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  152; 
Barron  v.  Eldridge,  100  Mass.  455; 
Rogers  v.  Wheeler,  52  N.  Y.  262,  6 
Lans.  (N.  Y.)  420;  O'Xeil  v.  New 
York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  N.  Y.  138, 
10  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  121. 

The  owner  of  a  warehouse  who  con- 
tracts with  the  owner  of  goods  stored 
therein,  to  deliver  them  at  her  house 
at  a  specified  time,  three  or  four 
hoTirs  later,  is  liable  as  a  common 
carrier  instead  of  a  warehouseman, 
although  the  goods  remain  in  the 
warehouse,  where  they  are  d'stroj-ed 
by  fire  less  than  an  hour  before  the 
time  agreed   on   for   delivery.     Rnell- 


ing  V.  Yetter,  25  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
590.  27  Civ.  Pro.  (N.  Y.)  158,  49  N. 
Y.  Supp.  917. 

79.  O'Xeil  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  60  N.  Y.  138;  Piatt  v.  Hib- 
bard,  7  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  499;  Michigan 
Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shurtz,  7 
Mich.  515;  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Hunter,  42  Ark.  200,  18  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  527;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Montgomery,  39  111.  335;  Moses 
V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  H.  71, 
55  Am.  Dec.  222;  Rogers  v.  Wheeler, 
52  N.  Y.  262;  Fitchburg,  etc,  R.  Co. 
V,  Hanna,  6  Gray  (Mass.)  539;  Bar- 
ron V.  Eldridge,  100  Mass.  455; 
Nichols  V.  Smith  115  Mass.  332; 
Dickinson  v.  Winchester,  4  Cush. 
(Mass.)  114,  50  Am.  Dec.  760;  Illi- 
nois Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Tronstine,  64 
Miss.  834,  2  So.  255;  Basnight  v.  At- 
lantic, etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  N.  C.  592; 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barrett,  36 
Ohio  St.  448,  3  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
256;  Schmidt  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
90  Wis.  504;  Milloy  v.  Grand  Trunk 
R.  Co.,  23  Ont.  Rep.  454,  55  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  579;  Foard  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Jones  L.  (N.  C.)  235, 
78  Am.  Doc.  277;  Goodbar  v.  Wa- 
bash R.  Co.,  53  Mo.  App.  434. 


34  THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

thing  roinains  to  bo  dono  by  tlio  sliippcr,  after  the  delivery  of 
the  goods  for  transportation,  the  liability  of  tho  carrier  as  an 
insurer  does  not  connnenre,  and  he  is  responsible  only  as  a  ware- 
houseman, until  the  ('(Mulilions  have  been  performed  upon  which 
their  transportation  was  suspended.^'^ 

§  35.  Postmasters,  mail  contractors,  and  mail  carriers. 

Tho  constitution  of  tho  United  States  bestows  upon  Congress 
power  "to  establish  post-offices  and  post-roads.'"^  The  postal  ser- 
vice is  organized  and  maintained  as  one  of  the  departments  of  the 
General  Govcrnment.^^  The  regulation  and  conduct  of  the  post 
offices  and  the  entire  postal  service,  including  the  money  order 
system  and  other  branches,  is  provided  for  in  the  statutes  under 
the  title  "The  Postal  Service.""  The  Postmaster-General,  local 
postmasters,  mail  contractors,  and  mail  carriers  act  in  the  cliar- 
acter  of  public  officers  or  agents;  they  enter  into  no  contracts 
with  individuals  who  derive  benefit  from  their  services,  and  re- 
ceive no  hire  from  them,  like  common  carriers,  in  proportion  to 
the  value  of  the  letters  or  merchandise  carried  by  them;  but 
their  contracts  are  with  the  government,  from  whom  they  receive 
only  a  general  compensation.  They  are,  therefore,  not  liable, 
as  common  carriers  for  the  safety  of  such  things  as  may  be  trans- 
mitted through  the  mails,  or  for  the  malfeasance  or  embezzlement 
of  clerks  and  deputies  duly  employed  by  them;  but  they  must 
answer  for  the  use  of  reasonable  diligence  in  discharging  their 
duties.**     A  postmaster  is  liable  as  a  public  officer,  to  the  gov- 

80.  Wade  v.  Wheeler,  3  Lans.    (N.  R.  Co.   (Dak.),  29  N.  W.  659,  27  Am. 

Y.)    201;    St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  &  Eng.  R.  Caa.  33;   Milloy  v.  Grand 

Knight,  122  U.  S.  79,  7  Sup.  Ct.  1132,  Trunk  R.  Co.,  21  Ont.  App,  404,  revg. 

30  L.  Ed.  1077;  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  23  Ont.  Rep.  454,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

V.    Mt.    Vernon    Co.,    84     Ala.     173;  Cas.  579;   Basnight  v.  Atlantic,  etc., 

Cairus   v.   Robins,    8   M.   &   W.   258;  R.  Co.,  Ill  N.  C.  592. 

Barron   v.    Eldridge,    100   Mass.    455,  81.  U.  S.  Const,  art.  1,  §  8,  pur.  7. 

1    Am.    Rep.    126;    Watts   v.    Boston,  82.  R.  S.  U.  S.  pp.  65-70. 

etc.,    R.    Corp.,    106    Mass.    467;    Illi-  83.  R.  S.  U.  S.  pp.  750-783. 

nois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Ashmead,  58  111.  84.  Central   R..   etc.,   Co.  v.   Lamp- 

487;   Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  McClel-  ley,  76  Ala.  357,  52  Am.  Rep.  334,  23 

Ian,  54  111.  58,  5  Am.  Rep.  83;   Illi-  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.   720;    Powell   v. 

Tiois   Cent.   R.   Co.   v.  Homberger,    77  Mills,  30  Miss.  231,  64  Am.  Dec.  158; 

111.   457;    Mulligan  v.  Northern   Pac-  Wiggins   v.    Hathaway,    6   Barb.    {N. 


COMMON  CARRIERS. 


85 


eminent,  for  the  discharge  of  the  general  duties  imposed  on  him 
by  statute;*^  and  to  individuals,  in  either  a  United  States  or 
State  court,  for  money  or  property  lost  or  stolen  from  his  office 
through  his  negligence  or  wrongful  act,  or  that  of  his  assistants 
or  servants,  whereby  special  damage  is  sustained;^''  and  to  an 
action  of  trover,  for  unlawfully  refusing  to  deliver  mail  matter 
to  an  individual,  to  whom  it  is  addressed.^^  A  railroad  carrying 
mail  for  the  government  owes  no  duty  to   the  addressee  of  a 


Y.)  632;  Franklin  v.  Low  and  Swart- 
wout,  1  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  396;  Conwell 
V.  Voorhees,  13  Ohio,  523,  42  Am. 
Dec.  206;  Schroyer  v.  Lynch,  8  Watts 
(Pa.),  453;  Dunlop  v.  Munroe,  7 
Cranch  (U.  S.),  242;  Bolan  v.  Wil- 
liamson, 2  Bay  (S.  C),  551,  1  Brev. 
(S.  C.)  181;  Maxwell  v.  Mclvrj',  2 
Bibb.  (Ky.)  211;  Foster  v.  Metts,  55 
Miss.  77,  30  Am.  Rep.  504;  Hutchins 
V.  Brackett,  22  N.  H.  252,  53  Am. 
Dec.  248;  Story  Bailm.  §  463;  2 
Kent's  Com.  610.  Compare  Sawyer 
V.  Corse,  17  Gratt.  (Va.)  230,  94  Am. 
Dec.  445;  Christy  v.  Smith,  23  Vt. 
663;  Ford  v.  Parker,  4  Ohio  St.  576; 
Fitzgerald  v.  Burr  ill,  106  Mass.  445; 
Bishop  V.  Williamson,  11  Me.  495. 

By  the  common  law  and  in  the 
days  of  private  posts  a  liability  as 
common  carriers  naturally  attached 
to  postmasters.  Jones  Bailm.  109, 
110.  A  mail  carrier  is  not  an  officer 
of  the  Government,  but  is  the  private 
agent  of  the  contractor  for  carrying 
the  mail,  and  the  contractor  is  liable 
to  third  persons  for  any  injury  or 
lofl<',  as  of  money  in  a  letter,  sus- 
tained through  the  negligence  or  de- 
fault of  Buch  agent  in  the  perform- 
ance of  his  duties.  Hall  v.  Smith,  2 
Bing.  C.  P.  156,  9  E.  C.  L.  357;  Hol- 
liday  v.  St.  Leonard.  103  E.  C.  L.  192. 

The  pame  principle  that  gives  relief 
ngainst  a  contractir  with  the  govern- 


ment gives  the  like  relief  against  au 
officer  of  government.  Robinson  v. 
Chamberlain,  34  N.  Y.  389;  Hicks^ 
v.  Dorn,  42  N.  Y.  47;  Hover  v.  Bark- 
hoof,  44  N.  Y.  113. 

When  the  government  assumed 
control  of  the  post  office  (stat.  IZ 
Car.  II)  it  was  held  that  the  post- 
master was  not  liable  for  the  loss 
of  a  letter  with  exchequer  bills  in  it, 
and  that  postmasters  enter  into  no 
contracts  with  individuals,  and  re- 
ceive no  hire,  like  common  carriers, 
in  proportion  to  the  value  of  the  let- 
ters under  their  charge,  but  only  a 
general  compensation  from  govern- 
ment, and  are,  therefore,  not  liable, 
as  common  carriers.  Lane  v.  Cotton, 
1  Ld.  Raym.  646;  Whitfield  v.  Le 
Desprurer,  Cowp.  K.  B.  754. 

85.  Strong  v.  Campbell,  11  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)    135. 

86.  Idaho  Gold  Reduction  Co.  v. 
Croghan  (Id.),  56  Pac.  164;  Bishop 
V.  Williamson,  11  Me.  495;  Coleman 
V.  Frazier,  4  Rich,  (S.  C.)  146,  53 
Am.  Dec.  727;  Bolan  v.  Williamson, 
1  Brev.  (S.  C.)  181,  2  Bay  (S.  C), 
Sawyer  v.  Corse,  17  Gratt.  (Va.)  230, 
94  Am.  Dec.  445. 

87.  Tcall  V.  Felton,  1  N.  Y.  537,  3 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  512,  12  How.  (U.  S.) 
284;  Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Lawrence, 
1  Pet.  (U.  S.)  578;  Nevins  v.  Bank 
of  Lansingburgh,  10  Mich.  547. 


gg  'iOK    LAW    OF    CARIUKRS. 

package  rendering  tlio  railroad  liable  for  tlie  loss  of  the  same 
Lbrough  ltd  uegligonco;  but  conceding  that  it  may  bo  liable  to 
fiuch  addressee  for  the  loss  of  the  same  in  the  mail  through  its 
negligence,  tlie  degree  of  caro  required  is  only  the  reasonable  care 
exacted  of  an  ordinary  bailee  for  hire/"  A  contractor  to  carry 
the  mail  between  the  railroad  station  and  the  post  office  in  a 
towTi  is  not  a  common  carrier  and  owes  a  railroad  mail  clerk  no 
further  duty  than  the  exercise  of  reasonable  cure.'"'"^ 

§  36.  Log-carrying,  or  log-driving,  or  boom  companies. 

One  who  contracts  to  cut  a  lot  of  timber  and  transport  it  to  a 
place  where  it  is  to  be  delivered  and  used,  does  not  act,  while 
transporting  the  timber,  as  a  common  carrier,  and  incur  ro- 
sponsibility  as  such;  he  is  only  liable  for  the  want  of  ordinary 
prudence,  care  and  skill.*'  A  boom  company,  engaged  in  the 
business  of  driving  and  booming  logs,  for  any  person  having  logs 
to  be  driven,  and  charging  regular  rates  therefor,  is  not  a  com- 
mon carrier,  nor  subject  to  the  common-law  liabilities  of  car- 
riers.'°  A  constitutional  provision,  providing  that  all  railroads 
are  public  highways,  and  all  railroad  companies  common  car- 
riers, does  not  have  the  effect  of  making  a  business  corporation 
organized  to  construct  and  operate  a  sawmill  and  a  railroad  in 
connection  therewith,  which  constructs  a  logging  railroad  on  its 
private  grounds,  and  operates  the  same  for  private  purposes,  a 
common  carrier,  charged  with  the  duties  and  responsibilities  im- 
posed by  law  on  such  carriers.^^  The  responsibilities  of  a  private 
carrier,  operating  a  railroad  for  the  purposes  of  its  own  business, 
and  permitting  persons  to  travel  gratuitously  on  such  road,  are 
different  from  those  of  common  carriers  for  hire;  and,  in  an 
action  against  such  a  private  carrier  for  damages  caused  by  its 
alleged  negligence,  it  is  not  error  to  refuse  instructions  to  the 

88.  German  State  Bank  v.  Minne-  Booming  Co.,  46  Mich.  38,  8  N.  W. 
apolia,  etc.,  R.  Co,  (U.  S.  C.  C  550,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  141;  Chesley  v. 
Minn.),  113  Fed.  414.  Mississippi    &    R.    R.    Boom    Co.,    39 

88a.  Davis   v.   Crisham,   213   Mass.  Minn.  83,  38  N.  W.  769. 
151    99  N.  E.  959.  ^1-  Wade  v.  Lutcher  &  Moore  Cy- 

89.  Pike  v.  Nash,  3  Abb.  App.  Dec  press  Lumber  Co.,  74  Fed.  517,  20  C. 
(N.  Y.)    610,   1  Keyes    (N.  Y.),   335.  C.  A.  515,  41  U.  S.  App.  45;    Const. 

90.  Mann    v.    White    River    Log   4  of  La.,  art.  244. 


COMMON  CARRIERS.  87 

jury  based  upon  the  rules  as  to  the  liability  of  common  carriers.^^ 
In  an  action  against  a  logging  company  for  personal  injuries 
caused  by  the  derailment  of  a  train  on  its  logging  road, 
on  which  the  plaintiff  was  riding,  it  appeared  that  the  defend- 
ant's sole  business  was  logging,  and  it  had  never  authorized  the 
use  of  its  road  for  carrying  passengere;  but  there  was  evidence 
that  the  defendant's  general  superintendent  had  instructed  the 
plaintiff,  who  had  come  to  the  logging  camp  in  search  of  work, 
to  get  on  the  train,  anl  go  for  his  blankets,  so  as  to  return  and 
go  to  work  and  also  evidence  that  the  trains  were  used,  with  the 
knowledge  of  the  defendant,  for  carrying  people  up  and  down 
the  road.  It  was  held  that  it  was  not  error  to  refuse  to  direct  a 
verdict  for  the  defendant.^^'' 

§  37.  Telegraph  companies. 

Telegraph  companies  are  not  insurers  of  the  safe  and  accurate 
transmission  of  messages,  and,  like  common  carriers,  liable  for 
all  losses  resulting  from  an  incorrect  transmission,  unless  occa- 
sioned by  an  act  of  God  or  of  the  public  enemy.^^     The  reasons 

91a.  Wade  v.  Lutcher  &  Moore  Cy-  79,   8   Am.   &   Eng.   Corp.   Cas.    102; 

press  Lumber  Co.,  supra.  Hart    v.    Western    Union    Tel.    Co., 

91b.  Albion  Lumber  Co.  v.  De  No-  1    Am.    Electl.    Cas.    734,    66    Cal. 

bra,  72  Fed.  739,  19  C.  C.  A.  168,  44,  579,     8     Am.     &     Eng.     Corp.     Cas. 

U.  6.  App.  347.  24,    56   Am.   Rep.    119    (rule   changed 

92.  Not  liable  as  insurers.— Breese  by  Civil  Code,  §§  2162,  2168)  ;  West- 

V.  United  States  Teleg.  Co.,  48  N.  Y.  em     Union     Tel     Co.     v.     Hyer,     2 

132,    141,    8   Am.   Rep.   526,   afTg.   45  Am.    Electl.    Cas.    484,    22    Fla.    637, 

Barb.     (N.    Y.)     274,    31    How.    Pr.  16  Am.     Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  232,  1  Am. 

(N.  Y.)    86;    Leonard   v.  New   York,  St.  Rep.  222;   Central  Union  Teleph. 

etc.,  Teleg.  Co.,  41  N.  Y.  544,  571,  1  Co.  v.  Bradbury,  2  Am.  Electl.  Cas. 

Am.    Rep.    446;    De    Rutte    v.    New  14,    106    Ind.    1;    Tyler    v.    Western 

York,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  1  Daly   (N.  Y.),  Union   Tel.   Co.,    1   Am.   Electl.    Cas. 

647,     30    How.     Pr.     (N.    Y.)     403;  14,    60    111.    421,    14    Am.    Rep.    38; 

Schwartz      v.      Atlantic,      etc.,      Tel.  Sweatland   v.    Illinois,   etc.,   Tel    Co., 

Co.,     1     Am.     Electl.     Cas.     284,     18  27  Iowa,  458,  1  Am.  Rep.  285;   Aken 

Hun    (N.   Y.)    157;    Ellis   v.   Ameri-  v.    Western    Union    Tel.    Co.,    2    Am. 

can  Tel   Co.,  13  Allen    (Mass.),  232;  Electl.  Cas.  566,  69  Iowa,  31,  13  Am. 

Westorn  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Griswold,  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  585,  58  Am.  Rep. 

37   Ohio   St.   310,  41   Am.   Rep.   500;  210;    Camp    v.    Western    Union    Tel. 

Little  Rock,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.  v.  Davis,  Co.,  1  Mete.  (Ky.)    164,  71  Am.  Dec. 

1     Am.    Electl.    Cas.     525,    41    Ark.  461;    Fowler   v.    Western   Union   To!. 


88 


THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 


wliicli  have  impelled  the  courts  to  adopt  the  rule  tliat  such  com- 
panies  should   not    bo   charged   with    the   absolute   liability   of   a 


Co.,  3  Aui.  Klectl.  Cas.  007.  80  Me. 
3S1,  6  Am.  St.  Rep.  211;  Bartlctt  v. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  1  Am.  Electl. 
Cas.  45,  62  Me.  209,  16  Am.  Rep. 
437;  Birney  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Tel. 
Co.,  IS  Md.  341,  81  Am.  Dec.  607; 
Crinnell  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 
1  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  70,  113  Mass.  299, 
18  Am.  Rep.  485;  Western  Union 
Ifel.  Co.  V.  Carew,  15  Mich.  525; 
Wann  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  37 
Mo.  472,  90  Am.  Dec.  395;  New 
York,  etc.,  Print.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Dryburg, 
35  Pa.  St.  298,  78  Am.  Dec.  333;  P.isa- 
more  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  1 
Am.  Electl.  Cas.  168,  78  Pac.  St.  238; 
Aiken  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  1 
Am.  Electl.  Cas.  121,  5  S.  C.  538; 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Neill,  1 
Am.  Electl.  Cas.  352,  57  Tex.  283,  44 
Am.  Rep.  589;  Western  Union  Tel. 
Co.  V.  Edsall,  1  Am.  Electl.  Cas. 
715,  63  Tex.  668,  8  Am.  &  Eng. 
Corp.  Cas.  70;  Washington,  etc.,  Tel. 
Co.  V.  Hobson,  15  Gratt.  (Va.)  122; 
Hibbard  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 
1  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  62,  33  Wis.  565; 
Candee  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  1 
Am.  Electl.  Cas.  99,  34  Wis.  471, 
17  Am.  Rep.  452;  Abraham  v.  West- 
ern Union  Tel.  Co.,  1  Am.  Electl. 
Cas.  728,  23  Fed.  Rep.  315,  8  Am. 
&  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  130,  11  Sawy. 
(U.  S.)  28;  Southern  Express  Co.  v. 
Caldwell,  21  Wall.  (U.  S.)  269;  Bax- 
ter V.  Dominion  Tel.  Co.,  37  U.  C.  Q. 
B.  470;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Reynolds,  1  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  487,  77 
Va.  173,  46  Am.  Rep.  715,  5  Am.  & 
Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  182. 

The  transmission  of  messages  is 
necessarily  subject  to  the  risk  of  mis- 
take  and   interruption.     The  wire   is 


exposed  to  the  interference  of  strang- 
ers; a  surcliarge  of  electricity  in  the 
atniospliere,  or  a  failure  of  or  an  ir- 
regularity ill  the  electrical  current, 
may  stop  cunimunication;  and  it  is 
continually  subject  to  danger  from 
accident,  malice,  and  climatic  influ- 
ence, when  the  company  has  not  the 
actual  immediate  custody  of  the  mes- 
sages, as  the  common  carrier  has  of 
the  merchandise  it  carries;  and  it 
.should  not,  therefore,  like  a  common 
carrier,  be  treated  not  only  as  a 
bailee,  but  as  an  insurer.  Smith  v. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Qo.,  1  Am.  Electl. 
Cas.  743,  83  Ky.  104,  8  Am.  &  Eng. 
Corp.  Cas.  20,  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  128. 
The  nature  of  the  business  is  suggest- 
ive of  many  risks  and  contingencies 
to  which  no  other  business  or  agency 
is  subject.  The  electric  current  may 
be  interrupted  and  the  current  broken 
without  fault  of  the  corporation,  so 
as  to  obstruct  telegraphic  communi- 
cation, and  words  of  different  signifi- 
cation may  be  represented  by  charac- 
ters 80  similar  that  errors  in  trans- 
scribing  may  occur  without  fault  on 
the  part  of  the  person  transcribing 
it,  or  technical  terras  may  be  used  not 
easily  expressed  by  telegraphy,  and 
in  which  errors  may  occur  without 
fault.  These  and  risks  of  the  like 
character  are  upon  the  person  send- 
ing the  message,  unless  he  elects  to 
comply  with  the  terms  of  the  com- 
pany, and  have  the  dispatch  repeated, 
by  which  certain  risks  are  guarded 
against  and  errors  prevented  or  in- 
sured against.  But  an  error  in  tran- 
scribing the  direction,  and  a  conse- 
quent misdelivery,  are  prima  facie 
evidence  of  neglect  and  want  of  care 


COMMON  CAHRIERS.  gg 

common  carrier  are,  in  substance,  as  follows:  That  liaLility  waa 
founded  upon  tlie  necessities  of  the  case,  real  or  fancied,   and 
has  never  been  applied   to   any   person   or   any  occupation,   ex- 
cept those  of  carriers  of  goods  and  inn-keepers.     The  carrier  had 
the  exclusive  possession  and  control  of  the  goods,  often  in  secret, 
away  from  the  supervision  of  any  other  person,  with  opportunity 
for  embezzlement  and  collusion  with  evil-minded  persons,    and 
without  means  of  discovery  by  the  owner,  especially  in  the  ruder 
stages  of  civilization,  and  before  the  present  modes  of  communi- 
cation,  rapid   and  easy,  were   in  existence.      It  was,   upon  this 
view,  early  adopted,  as  a  rule  of  safety  to  the  community,  that 
the  carrier  should  always  be  prima  facie  liable,  in  case  of  non- 
delivery of  the  goods,  and  that  he  should  not  be  excused  for  any 
causes,  except  those  occurring  by  the  act  of  God  or  of  the  public 
enemies,  and  these  were  to  be  shown  by  himself.     "Whether  ?ts 
liability  is  based  upon  the  contract  it  makes,  or  upon  its  public 
duty,  the  telegraph  company  does  not  come  within  any  of  thet.e 
principles.     Its  liability  for  error  or  failure  in  the  transmission 
of  a  dispatch  is  quite  unlike  that  of  a  common  carrier.    A  telegraph 
company  is  entrusted  with  nothing  but  an  order  or  message,  which 
is  not  to  be  carried  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  received,  but  is  to 
be  transmitted  or  repeated  by  electricity,  and  is  peculiarly  liable 
to  mistake;  which  cannot  be  the  subject  of  embezzlement;  which 
is  of  no  intrinsic  value;  the  importance  of  which  cannot  be  esti- 
mated except  by  the  sender,  nor  ordinarily  disclosed  by  him  with- 
out the  danger  of  defeating  his  own  purposes;  which  may  be 
wholly  valueless,  if  not  forwarded  immediately;  for  the  trans- 
mission of  which  there  must  be  a  simple  rate  of  compensation; 
and  the  measure  of  damages  for  failure  to  transmit  or  deliver 
which  has  no  relation  to  any  value  which  can  be  put  on  the 
message  itself. ^^     On  the  other  hand,  the  authorities  which  have 

in  the  operator,  and  cast  the  burden  93.  Leonard  v.  New  York,  etc.,,  Tel. 

upon  the  company  of  explaining  the  Co.,  41  N.  Y.  544,  1   Am.  Rep.  446; 

error    and    showinfj   that   it   occurred  Grinnell   v.   Western   Union  Tel.   Co., 

without  fault.     This  is  upon  the  sup-  1  Am.  Elect.  Gas.  70,  113  Mass.  299, 

position  that  the  mesanpe  is  received  18  Am.  Rep.  485;  see  also,  cases  cited 

for       transmission       unconditionally.  note  92. 
Baldwin  v.  t^nitod  States  Tel.  Co.,  45 
N.  Y.  744,  751,  6  Am.  Rep.  165. 


90  THE    I^\W    OF    CARRIERS. 

maiutainod  that  tele^aph  companies  are  oommon  carriers  and, 
therefore,  liable  as  insurers,  have  ur^ed  the  following  reasons 
in  support  of  their  proposition:  Such  companies  hold  themselves 
out  to  the  public  as  engaged  in  a  particular  branch  of  business, 
in  which  tlie  iuterc>?ts  of  the  public  arc  deeply  concerned.  They 
propose  to  do  a  certain  thing  for  a  given  price.  There  is  no 
difference,  in  the  general  nature  of  the  legal  obligation  of  the 
contract,  between  carr^'ing  a  message  along  a  wire  and  carrying 
goods  or  a  package  along  a  route.  The  physical  agency  may  bo 
different,  but  the  essential  nature  of  the  contract  is  the  same. 
The  breach  of  the  contract,  in  the  one  case  or  in  the  other,  is, 
or  may  be  attended  with  the  same  consequences,  and  the  obliga- 
tion to  perform  tlie  stipulated  duty  is  the  same  in  both  cases. 
The  importance  of  the  discharge  of  it  in  both  cases  is  the  same. 
In  both  cases  the  contract  is  binding,  and  the  responsibilities  of 
the  parties  is  governed  by  the  same  general  rules.*^  The  rule 
established  by  the  latter  cases  has  been  changed  by  special  statu- 
tory provisions  in  California  and  is  not  now  accorded  much  weight 
elsewhere.^  But,  although  telegraph  companies  are  not  liable 
as  insurers,  they  are  bound  to  transmit  all  proper  messages  with 
the  care  and  diligence  adequate  to  the  business  which  they  under- 
take, to  serve  the  public  in  good  faith,  impartially  and  without 
discrimination,  and,  if  they  fail  so  to  do,  they  become  responsible 
for  any  losses  occasioned  by  the  neglect  and  omission  of  duty, 
or  willful  default,  of  their  servants  and  agents.^®  Like  common 
carriers,  however,  they  cannot  contract  with  their  employers  for 
exemption  from  liability  for  the  consequences  of  their  own  neg- 

94.    Parks   v.    Alta,   etc.,    Tel.    Co.,  Electric  Tel.  Co.   (Eng.),  17  C.  B.  3, 

13  Cal..  422,  73  Am.  Dec.  589;  West-  84  E.  C.  L.  3;    Gray  on  Telegraphs, 

em  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Fontaine,  1  Am.  §§  6,  7;   Shear.  &  Red.  on  Neg.    (4th 

Electl.  Cas.  229,  58  Ga.  433;  Western  ed.),  §  554,  et  seq.;  Kirby  v.  Western 

Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Meek,  1  Am.  Electl.  Union    Tel.    Co.,    6   Am.    Electl.    Cas. 

Cas.   138,  49  Ind.  53;   Bowen  v.  Lake  824,  7  S.  D.  623,  30  L.  R.  A.  621,  65 

Erie  Tel.  Co.    (Ohio),  1  Am.  L.  Reg.  N.    W.    37,   telegraph    companies    are 

685;    True  v.   International   Tel.   Co.,  made  common  carriers  by  statute. 

60  Me.  9,  11  Am.  Rep.  156;  Bryant  v.  95.  Cal.  Civ.  Code,  §§  2162,  2168; 

American  Tel.   Co.,   1   Daly    (N.  Y.),  see  cases  cited  note  92. 

675;    Bell   v.   Dominion   Tel.   Co.,  25  96.  See  cases  cited  note  92  under 

L.  C  J.    (Can.),  248;   MacAndrew  v.  this  section. 


COMMON  CARRIERS. 


91 


ligence  or  that  of  their  servants."      They  are  responsible  only 


97.  Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Cald- 
well, 21  Wall.  (U.  S.)  269;  White 
V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  14  Fed. 
Rep.  710;  American  Union  Tel.  Co. 
V.  Daughtery,  3  Am.  Electl.  Gas.  579, 
89  Ala.  191;  Stiles  v.  Western  Union 
Tel.  Co.,  2  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  471 
(Ariz.),  15  Pac.  712;  Western  Union 
Tel.  Co,  V.  Short,  3  Am.  Electl.  Cas 
692,  53  Ark.  434;  Western  Union 
TeL  Co.  V.  Graham,  1  Colo.  230,  9 
Am.  Rep.  136;  Western  Union  Tel. 
Co.  V.  Blanchard,  1  Am.  Electl.  oas. 
404,  68  Ga.  299,  45  Am.  Rep.  480; 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Fontaine, 
1  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  229,  58  Ga.  433; 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Meredith, 
1  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  643,  95  Ind.  93, 
8  Am.  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  54;  Western 
Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Adams,  1  Am. 
Electl.  Cas.  442,  87  Ind.  598,  44  Am. 
Rep.  776;  Western  Union  Tel  Co.  v. 
Meek,  1  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  138,  49  Ind. 
63;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Fen- 
ton,  1  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  198,  52  Ind. 
1;  Harkness  v.  Western  Union  Tel. 
Co.,  2  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  571,  73  Iowa 
190,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  182, 
5  Am.  St.  Rep.  672;  Sweatland  v. 
Illinois,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  27  Iowa  433,  1 
Am.  Rep.  285;  Granville  v.  Western 
Union  Tel.  Co.,  37  Iowa  214,  18  Am. 
Rep.  8;  Tyler  v.  Western  Union  Tel. 
Co.,  1  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  14,  60  111.  421, 
14  Am.  Rep.  38;  Western  Union  Tel. 
Co.  V.  Tyler,  74  111.  168,  24  Am.  Rep. 
279;  Smith  v.  Western  Union  Tel. 
Co.,  1  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  743,  83  Ky. 
104,  8  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas,  15, 
4  Am.  St.  Rep.  126;  Camp  v.  West- 
ern Union  Tel.  Co.,  1  Mete.  (Ky.) 
164,  71  Am.  Dec.  461;  De  La  Grange 
V.  Southwrstern  Tel.  Co.,  1  Am. 
Electl    Cas.    59,    25    T>a.    Ann.    383; 


Bartlett  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 
1  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  45,  62  Me.  209,  16 
Am.  Rep.  437;  Ayer  v.  Western 
Union  Tel.  Co.,  2  Am.  Electl.  Cas. 
601,  79  Me.  493,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 
Cas.  145,  1  Am.  St.  Rep.  353;  West- 
ern Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Griswold,  37 
Ohio  St.  303,  41  Am.  Rep.  500;  Marr 
V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  2  Am. 
Electl.  Cas.  720,  85  Tenn.  529,  16  Am. 
&  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  243;  Pepper  v. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  2  Am. 
Electl.  Cas.  756,  87  Tenn.  554,  25 
Am.  &  Eng,  Corp  Cas.  542,  10  Am. 
St.  Rep.  699;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co. 
V.  Broesche,  2  Am.  Elect.  Cas.  815,  72 
Tex.  654,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  843;  Wertz 
V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  3  Am. 
Electl.  Cas.  803,  7  Utah  446;  Gillis 
V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  2  Am. 
Electl.  Cas.  841,  61  Vt.  461,  25  Am.  & 
Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  568,  15  Am.  St.  Rep. 
917;  Thompson  v.  Western  Union 
Tel.  Co.,  64  Wis.  531,  54  Am.  Rep. 
644;  Candee  v.  Western  Union  TeU 
Co.,  1  Am.  Electl  Cas.  99,  34  Wis. 
471,  17  Am.  Rep.  452. 

The  reason  of  the  rule.— "  Courts 
and  legislatures  have  been  liberal  in 
allowing  telegraph  companies  to  pro- 
vide against  such  risks  as  arise  out 
of  atmospheric  influences  and  kin- 
dred causes.  At  this  point  they  have 
properly  stopped.  To  permit  them  to 
contract  against  their  own  negli- 
gence would  be  to  arm  them  with  a 
most  dangerous  power,  and  indeed 
that  would  leave  the  public  almost 
entirely  remediless.  It  must  be  born 
in  mind  that  the  public  have  but 
little  choice  in  the  selection  of  the 
company  which  is  to  perform  the  de- 
sired service.  They  ire  bound  to 
take  it  as  they  find  it  and  to  commit 


92 


THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 


for  failure  to  exercise  ordinary  care  and  vigilance  in  the  per- 
•formuneo  of  their  duties.^**  In  New  York  and  some  of  thei 
othoa-  States  telegraph  companies  have  the  right  to  make  reason- 
able rules  and  regulations  for  tlie  conduct  of  their  business,  and 
they  can  thus  limit  their  liability  for  mistake,  not  occasioned 
by  gross  negligence  or  willful  misconduct,  and  this  they  can  do 
by  notice  brought  home  to  the  sender  of  the  message,  or  by 
special  contract  entered  into  with  him.^'     A  telegraph  company 


to  its  agents  their  messages,  how- 
ever valuable.  Such  being  the  case, 
public  policy  as  well  as  commercial 
necessity  require  that  companies  en- 
gaged in  telegraphing  should  be  held 
to  a  high  degree  of  responsibility." 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Graham,  1 
Colo.  237,  9  Am.  Rep.  136. 

98.  Baldwin  v.  United  States  Tel. 
Co.,  45  N.  Y.  744,  6  Am.  Rep.  165. 

99.  Breese  v.  United  States  Tel. 
Co.,  48  N.  Y.  141,  8  Am.  Rep.  526; 
Mowry   v.    Western   Union   Tel.    Co., 

2  Am.  Electl.  Caa.  679,  51  Hun 
(N.   Y.),    126,    4   N.   Y.    Supp.    666; 

Pearsall  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 

3  Am.  Electl.  Caa.  724,  124  N.  Y.  256, 
21  Am.  St.  Rep.  662;  Nicholas  v. 
New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  89 
N.  Y.  370;  Kenney  v.  New  York 
Cent.,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  125  N.  Y.  422; 
Will  V  Postal  Tel.  Cable  Co.,  6  Am. 
Electl.  Cas.  807,  3  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.), 
22,  73  St.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  552,  37  N.  Y. 
Supip.  933,  3  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  123;  Bir- 
ney  v.  New  York  and  Washington 
Tel.  Co.,  18  Md.  341,  81  Am.  Dec. 
607;  New  York  &  Washington  Print- 
ing Tel.  Co.  V.  Dryburg,  35  Pa.  St. 
298;  Ellis  v.  American  Tel.  Co.,  13 
Allen  (Mass.),  226;  Western  Union 
Tel.  Co.  V.  Carew,  15  Mich.  525; 
Wann  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  37 
Mo.  472,  90  Am.  Dec.  395;  Camp  v. 
We.^tern    Union     Tel.     Co.,    1    Mete. 


(Ky.)  164;  McAndrcwv.  Electric  Tel. 
Co.,  33  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  180;  Lassiter 
V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  89  N.  C. 
336,  5  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  230; 
Pi^jram  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 
97  N.  C.  57,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 
Cas.  122;  Becker  v.  Western  Union 
Tel.  Co.,  1  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  337,  11 
Neb.  87,  37  Am.  Rep.  356;  Grinnell 
V.  Western  Union  Tel  Co.,  1  Am. 
Electl.  Cas.  70,  113  Mass.  299,  18  Am. 
Rep.  485;  Redpath  v.  Western  Union 
Tel.  Co.,  1  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  40,  112 
Mass.  71,  17  Am.  Rep.  69;  United 
States  Tel.  Co.  v.  Gildersleeve,  29 
Md.  232,  96  Am.  Dec.  519;  Hart  v. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  1  Am.  Electl. 
Cas.  734,  66  Cal.  579,  8  Am.  &  Eng. 
Corp.  Cas,  24,  56  Am.  Rep.  119; 
White  V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  14 
Fed.  Rep.  710,  5  McCrary  (U.  S.), 
103. 

See  also  Kemp  v.  Western  Union 
Tel.  Co.,  3  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  711,  28 
Neb.  661,  30  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas. 
607,  holding  that  a  statute  of  that 
state  prohibiting  exemption  from  lia- 
bility by  contract  is  reasonable,  and 
binding  on  all  companies  in  that 
State;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Neill,  1  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  352,  57  Tex. 
283,  44  Am.  Rep.  589;  Womack  v. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  1  Am.  Electl. 
Caa.  454,  58  Tex.  176,  44  Am.  Rep. 
614,      holding      tliat      a     stipulation 


COMMON  CARRIERS. 


93 


furnishing  messengers  for  the  delivery  of  packages,  does  not  aa- 
smne  the  liability  of  a  common  carrier,  but  only  agrees  that  the 
messenger  furnished  shall  be  a  suitable  person  for  the  work.®®* 
As  we  have  already  shown  the  courts  have  differed  as  to  the  legal 
status  of  telegraph  and  telephone  companies.®®''  For  example,  it 
was  held  that  telegraph  companies,  in  the  absence  of  a  statute 
making  them  such,  are  not  common  carriers.®®"  It  was  held  tliat 
whatever  may  have  been  the  law  heretofore,  it  is  now  generally 
held  that  telegraph  companies  are  not  common  carriers;  but 
nevertheless  a  telegraph  company  is  not  a  mere  private  one  for 
pergonal  gain  only,  but  the  business  in  which  it  is  engaged  is  for 
the  benefit  of,  and  used  for  the  benefit  of,  the  general  public.®®^ 
It  was  held  that  telegraph  companies  are  not  public  carriers  in 
the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  yet  on  account  of  the  public  nature 
of  their  employment  they  have  in  many  cases  been  held  to  a  very- 
similar  responsibility.®®®  Later  cases  hold  otherwise.  For  ex- 
ample: Telephone  and  telegraph  companies  are  common  carriers 


against  liability  will  not  extend  to 
injuries  caused  by  "  the  misconduct, 
fraud,  or  want  of  due  care  on  the 
part  of  the  company,  its  servants  or 
agents."  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Goodbar  (.Miss.),  7  So.  214,  holding 
the  company  liable  for  gross  negli- 
gence, notwithstanding  an  exemption 
clause  in  the  contract. 

Fraud  or  bad  faith. — Telegraph 
companies  cannot  relieve  themselves 
by  their  regulations  from  liability 
for  "  fraud  or  any  conduct  inconsist- 
ent with  good  faith."  Schwartz  v. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  1  Am.  Electl. 
Caa.  284,  18  Hun  (N.  Y.),  157;  Can- 
dee  V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  1 
Am..  Electl.  Cas.  99,  34  Wis.  471,  17 
Am.  Rep.  452;  United  States  Tel.  Co. 
▼.  Gildersleeve,  29  Md.  232,  96  Am. 
Dec.  519;  Jones  v.  Western  Union 
Tel.  Co.,  1  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  531,  13 
Fed.  Rep.  717;  3  Suth.  on  Dam.  296. 

99a.  Murray    v.    Postal    Telegraph 


&  Cable  Co.,  210  Mass.  188,  96  N.  E. 
316. 

99b.  See  cases  cited  in  preceding 
notes  to  this  section. 

99c.  Birkett  v.  Western  Union  Tel- 
egraph Co.,  103  Mich.  361,  61  N.  W. 
645,  33  L.  R.  A.  404,  50  Am.  St.  Rep. 
374.      (1894), 

Under  the  Oklahoma  staute,  de- 
claring a  telegraph  company  to  be  a 
common  carrier,  such  companies  are 
to  be  treated  in  all  respects  as  in- 
vested with  those  privileges  and  as 
bound  by  those  obligations  and  re- 
strictions placed  around  carriers. 
Blackwell  Milling  &  Elevator  Co.  v. 
Western  Union  Telegraph  Co.,  17 
Okl.   376,   89   Pac.   235.      (1907). 

99d.  State  ex  rel  National  Subway 
Co.  V.  City  of  St.  LouiB,  145  Mo.  551, 
46  S.  W.  981,  42  L.  R.  A.  113. 
(1898). 

99('.  Western  Union  Telegraph  Co. 
V.  Reynolds,  77  Va.  173,  46  Am.  Rep. 
715.      (1883). 


y4  TUE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

of  news."'  A  telephone  company  is  a  common  carrier  of  news, 
and  affected  with  a  public  interest.'"^  A  telephone  company  is 
a  common  carrier  of  intelligence.^^'^  A  telephone  company  is  a 
common  carrier  of  conmiunications.®^'  A  telephone  company  is 
a  common  carrier  of  intelligence  and  news.'*^  A  telephone  com- 
pany is  a  public  service  corporation  engaged  in  a  public  utility, 
and  in  receiving,  transmitting,  and  delivering  messages  should 
be  treated  as  an  independent  principal  or  contracting  party,  and 
bo  held  liable  both  in  contract  and  tort,  the  same  as  other  prin- 
cipals.^"' A  telephone  company  doing  a  general  telephone  busi- 
ness is  a  common  carrier.^"  A  telegraph  company  is  a  public 
service  corporation.®^'"  The  Interstate  Commerce  Act,  section  1, 
as  amended  in  1910,  provides  that  the  provisions  of  that  act  shall 
apply  to  "  telegraph,  telephone,  and  cable  companies  (whether 
wire  or  wireless)  engaged  in  sending  messages  from  one  State, 
Territory  or  District  of  tlie  United  States,  to  any  other 
State,  Territory^,  or  District  of  the  United  States,  or  to  any  foreign 
country,  who  shall  be  considered  and  held  to  be  common  carriers 
within  the  meaning  and  purpose  of  this  act,"  but  provides  that 
they  shall  not  apply  "  to  the  transmission  of  messages  by  telephone, 
telegraph,  or  cable  wholly  within  one  State  and  not  transmitted 
to  or  from  a  foreign  country  from  or  to  any  State  or  Territory  as 
aforesaid." '''' 

99/.  S.  O.—Gwynn  V.  Citizens' Tele-  99j.  Alt  v.  State,  88  Neb.  S.'sg,  129 

phone  Co.,  69  S.  C.  434,  48  S.  E.  460.  N.  W.  432.     (1911). 

(1904).  99k.  Strong  v.  Western  Union  Tel- 

Tenn. — State   v.    Cumberland   Tele-  egraph   Co.,   18  Idaho,  409,   109   Pac. 

phone    &    Telegraph    Co.,    114    Tenn.  917    (1910). 

194,  86  S.  W.  390.      (1905).  991.  State  v.  Cadwallader,  172  Ind. 

99g.  Mooreland     Rural     Telephone  619,   87  N,  E.  644,  rehearing  denied 

Co.  V.  Mouch,   48   Ind.  App.   521,   9G  89  N.  E.  319.      (1909). 

N.  E.  193    (1911).  99ni.  Dunn  v.  Western  Union  Tele- 

99h.  Brandon  v.   Cumberland  Tele-  graph  Co.,  2  Ga.  App.  845,  59  S.  E. 

phone  &  Telegraph  Co.,  146  Ky.  639,  189;   Jeffries  v.  Western  Union  Tcle- 

143  S.  W.  11.     (1912.)  graph  Co.,  2  Ga.  App.  853,  59  S.  E. 
99i.  Southwestern       Telegraph       &  192.      (1907). 

T<»lephone    Co.    v.    Danaher     (Ark.),  99n.  Interstate  Commerce  Act  §  1, 

144  S.  W.  925.     (1912).  as  amended  by  Act  June  18,  1910. 


COMMON  CARRIERS.  95 

§  38.  Telephone  companies. 

Telephone  companies  do  not  offer  to  transmit  messages,  but 
merely  furnish  to  subscribers  the  means  of  transmitting  their  own 
by  word  of  mouth,  and  they  have  been  held  not  to  be  common 
carriers.^    But  telephone  companies,  like  telegraph  companies,  are 
analogous  to  common  carriers  in  that  they  are  bound  to  afford 
equal  facilities  to  all,  and  may  be  compelled  by  mandamus  to 
furnish  facilities  to  one  offering  to  comply  with  their  regulations, 
even  though  such  party  is  a  rival  company,  and  are  responsible 
only  for  failure  to  exercise  proper  care.^     A  private  corporation 
engaged  in  the  business  of  operating  a  telephone  plant  is  a  common 
carrier  of  news  and  intelligence,  within  the  scope  of  a  statute  pro- 
viding for  the  regulation  of  the  rates  of  common  carriers.'     A 
telephone  company  doing  a  general  telephone  business  is  a  common 
carrier  of  news  and  must  furnish  impartial  service  without  dis- 
crimination to  all  persons  in  the  same  class.'*     The  later  cases 
hold  a  telephone  company,  like  a  telegraph  company,  to  be  a  com- 
mon carrier  of  news,  intelligence,  or  communications.'^     The  in- 
terstate Commerce  Act,  as  amended  by  the  Act,  June  18,  1910, 

1.  American  Rapid  Tel.  Co.  v.  Con-  167;  State  v.  Nebraska  Teleph.  Co., 
necticut  Teleph.  Co.,  1  Am.  Electl.  supra;  Delaware  v.  Delaware,  etc., 
Ca3.  390,  49  Conn.  352,  1  Am.  &  Eng.  Tel.  Co.,  3  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  533,  47 
Corp.  Cas.  378,  44  Am.  Rep.  237;  Fed.  Rep.  633,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 
State  V.  Nebraska  Teleph.  Co.,  1  Am.  Cas.  15 ;  Central  Union  Teleph.  Co.  v. 
Electl.  Cas.  700,  17  Neb.  126,  52  Am.  Bradbury,  2  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  14,  106 
Rep.  404,  8  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  1.  Ind.  1 ;  People  v.  Manhattan  Gas 
Cases  have  arisen  where  the  parties,  Light  Co.,  45  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  136; 
being  unable  to  communicate  directly  Central  Union  Teleph.  Co.  v.  State, 
with°each  other,  have  done  so  through  3  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  529,  2  Am.  Electl. 
the  medium  of  an  operator  of  an  in-  Cas.  27,  123  Ind.  113,  118  Ind.  194, 
termediate  station,  but  the  liability  10  Am.  St.  Rep.  113,  25  Am.  &  Eng. 
of   the    company    in    such    cases    was  Corp.  Cas.  481. 

not    adjudicated.     Sullivan    v.    Kuy-  3.  Nebraska    Teleph.    Co.   v.    State, 

kendall,    82    Ky.    483,    56    Am.    Rep.  Yeiser,  7  Am.  Elect.  Cas.  860,  55  Neb. 

001;   Oskamp  v.  Gadsden,  35  Neb.  7,  627,  76  N.  W.  171,  45  L.  R.  A.  113. 

52  N.  W.  718.  3a.  State  v.  Cadwallader,  172  Ind. 

2.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  Teleph.  Co.  v.  619,  87  N.  E.  ■644,  rehearing  denied 
Baltimore,     etc..     Tel.     Co.,     2     Am.  89  N.  E.  319  (1909). 

Electl.  Cas.  416,  66  Md.  399,  16  Am.  3b.  See  cases  cited   in   §   37,   notes 

k  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  219,  50  Am.  Rep.       99f-99k,  8upra. 


9(3  THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 

makes  a  telephono  company  doing  an  interstate  telephone  business 
a  common  carrier  within  the  meaning  and  purpose  of  that  act/° 

§  39.  Railroad  company  transporting  a  circus,  menagerie,  or 
show. 
A  railroad  company  is  not  a  common  or  public  carrier  in  respect 
to  a  special  train  of  cars  loaded  with  wild  animals  and  other 
property,  as  well  as  persons,  belonging  to  or  connected  with  a 
circus,  which  is  loaded  and  unloaded  by  the  proprietor  of  the 
circus  and  is  run  on  special  time  to  suit  his  convenience,  under  a 
special  contract  that  he  shall  assume  all  the  risks  of  accidents, 
the  only  duty  of  the  railroad  company  being  to  haul  the  cars.^  A 
common  carrier's  liability  does  not  attach  to  a  railroad  company 
contracting  to  move  a  menagerie  in  the  latter's  own  cars,  con- 
trolled by  its  own  agents,  and,  though  operated  by  railroad  em- 
ployes, run  upon  a  time  schedule  to  suit  the  menagerie.  And  a 
stipulation  that  the  company  shall  not  be  liable  for  injuries  to  the 
menagerie  caused  by  want  of  care  may  be  upheld.^  A  railroad 
company  is  not  required,  as  a  common  carrier,  to  take  a  circus 
train,  a  part  of  which  is  loaded  with  wild  animals,  and  transport 
the  same  over  its  line,  but  may  refuse  to  transport  such  train,  ex- 

3c.  See    Interstate    Commerce   Act,  company  is  transporting  a  circus  for 

§  1;   §  37,  supra.  a    gross    sum    under    a    contract    by 

4.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wallace,  which   the   proprietors   of   the   circus 

66  Fed.  506,  24  U.  S.  App.  589.     The  agree  to  assume  all   risk  of  accident 

court    held    that    the    defendant    was  from    any   cause   and   save   the   com- 

not  chargeable  as  a  common  carrier,  pany  harmless.     See  also  Watson  v. 

since  it  did  not  hold  itself  out  as  a  North   British   R.   Co.,   3   Ry.  and   C. 

carrier  of  wild  animals,  etc.,  nor  as  T.  Cas.  17. 

carrying  on  special  schedules  or  5.  Coup  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 
trains;  that  the  defendant  could  only  56  Mich.  Ill,  56  Am.  Rep.  374,  18 
be  charged  upon  the  special  contract.  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  542.  The  court, 
and  that  being  valid,  the  stipulation  in  this  case,  held  that  the  railroad  did 
against  liability  would  preclude  a  not  sustain  the  relation  of  common 
recovery.  Robertson  v.  Old  Colony  carrier,  and  was  therefore  entitled 
R.  Co.,  156  Mass.  525,  31  N.  E.  650,  to  stipulate  against  any  liability 
32  Am.  St.  Rep.  482,  a  railroad  com-  whatever.  At  most,  it  was  liable 
pany  is  not  liable  for  injury  to  an  only  for  negligence.  It  did  not  pro- 
employe  of  a  circus,  arising  from  a  fess,  and  was  under  no  obligation, 
defect  in  a  car  truck  which  inspec-  to  undertake  such  transportation. 
tion  would  have  revealed,  when  such 


COMMON  CAERIERS.  97 

cept  Tuider  a  special  contract  limiting  its  liability  to  that  assumed 
by  a  private  carrier/  A  railroad  corporation  as  a  common  carrier 
is  under  no  legal  duty  to  haul  show  cars,  that  is,  cars  owned  and 
fitted  up  by  showmen  and  used  exclusively  by  them  to  house  and 
transport  their  employes  and  show  property  as  a  complete  outfit 
from  place  to  place  over  railroads.^  But  where  a  railroad  com- 
pany, whose  ordinary  business  is  the  transportation  of  property 
for  hire,  agreed  with  plaintiff  to  furnish  the  motive  power  to  draw 
his  cars,  laden  with  his  property,  over  its  railroad,  plaintiff  being 
bound  to  load  and  unload  the  cars,  and  to  furnish  the  brakemen 
to  accompany  them  on  the  road,  who  were  to  be  under  the  control 
of  the  railroad  company's  conductor,  the  company  is  liable  as  a 
common  carrier  for  the  injury  to  plaintiff's  cars,  and  his  property 
therein,  not  caused  by  inevitable  accident,  or  the  public  enemies/** 

§  40.  Railroad  company  in  South  Carolina  liable  only  over  its 
own  line. 
In  South  Carolina  a  railroad  company,  which  is  liable  as  a 
common  carrier  within  the  termini  of  its  own  line,  is  not  liable 
as  such  beyond  its  own  line  and  over  connecting  lines,  unless  it 
has  assumed  such  liability  by  special  contract,  or  become  so  by 
usage  or  the  character  of  its  business/ 

§  41.  Railroad  company  carrying  a  dog  for  accommodation  of 
passenger. 
A  railroad  company  which  does  not  assume  the  transportation 
of  dogs,  but  permits  its  baggage-masters  to  take  charge  of  them 
as  a  matter  of  accommodation  and  for  a  fee  retained  by  the  bag- 
gage-master, is  not  liable  as  a  common  carrier,  if  the  dogs  come 
to  harm/    To  the  contrary,  it  has  been  held  that,  where  a  railroad 

6.  Wilson  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,      etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  S.  C.  353,  16  Am.  ft 
129    Fed.   774;    Sager   v.   North   Pac.      Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  194. 

Ry.  Co.,  166  Fed.  636.  8.  Honeyman    v.    Oregon    A    Cali- 

6a.     Cleveland,  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  fornia  R.  R.  Co.,  13  Ore.  352,  57  Am. 

Co.  y.  Henry,  170  Ind.  94,  83  N.  E.  Rep.   20,   25  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.   Caa. 

710.  380,    wherein    the    court    said:    "The 

8b.  Mallory  v.  Tioga  R.  R.  Co.,  89  facts  disclose  that  the  defendant  did 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    488.  not  hold  itself  out  as  a  common  car- 

7.  Piedmont  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Columbia,  ner  of  dogs,  or  assume  their  trans* 

7 


9S 


THE    LAW    OF    CARRIERS. 


passenger,  without  special  notice  of  the  company's  rcgiihition  that 
"  live  animals  are  allowed  as  haggagemeu's  perquisites,"  com- 
mitted a  dog  to  the  baggage-master  and  paid  him  for  its  transporta- 
tion, the  company  was  liable  for  the  loss  of  the  dog  by  the  baggage- 
man's delivering  it  to  the  wrong  person.'*  The  loss  of  a  dog  by 
negligence  of  a  baggage-master  will  render  the  carrier  liable,  al- 
though a  rule  of  the  company  provided  that  it  would  not  be  re- 
sponsible for  dogs,  where  the  owmer  was  not  notified  of  such  rule 
or  of  the  company's  refusal  to  be  responsible,  but  put  the  dog  in 
the  baggage  car  under  instruction  of  the  conductor.^"  In  an  action 
for  a  breach  of  a  contract  for  the  special  transportation  of  a  crate 
containing  five  dogs,  where  the  carrier  receiving  the  dogs  for 
shipment  by  a  certain  train  shipped  them  by  an  earlier  train, 
and,  no  one  being  present  to  receive  them,  returned  them  to  the 
place  of  shipment,  and  the  shipper,  learning  of  the  return,  directed 
them  to  be  reshipped  on  the  next  day,  without  in  any  way  pro- 
viding for  them,  the  shipper  was  held  not  entitled  to  damages  for 
the  death  of  one  of  the  dogs,  resulting  from  his  long  confinement, 
the  proximate  cause  of  the  death  being  the  neglect  of  the  shipper 
to  have  the  dogs  attended  to  before  reshipment.^^  But  the  general 
rules  of  law  respecting  the  obligations  and  liability  of  a  carrier  of 

portation  in  that  character,  but  that  tion  to  a  passenger,  it  permitted  the 

the    defendant    expressly    refused    to  baggage-master,   after  the  party  was 

accept   hire    and    furnish    tickets    for  notified  of   the   rules,   to   carry   them 

their    transportation.     The    evidence  in    his    car,    and    to    accept    pay    for 

shows  that  when  the  party  having  in  them." 

charge  the  dogs  applied  to  the  ticket  9.  Cantling    v.    Hannibal,    etc.,    R. 

agent    of    the    defendant    for    trans-  R.   Co.,   54  Mo.   385,   wherein   it  was 

portation   for   himself   and   dogs,   the  shown  that  the  company's   rules  and 

agent    refused    tickets    for    the    dogs,  regulations  were   printed  and   posted 

and    referred    him    to    the    baggage-  at  the  various  stations,  but  no  spe- 

master,  who  told  him,  'You  know  the  cial  notice  of  this  rule  was  brought 

rules  about  dogs;'  but,  as  an  accom-  home  to  the  owner  of  the  dog. 

modation,  consented  to  take  the  dogs  10.  Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

in    his    car,    and    promised    to    look  Higdon,  94  Ala.  286,  33  Am.  St.  Rep. 

after    them,    for    which    he    received  119,  52  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  495. 

two  dollars.     These  circumstances  do  11.  Harrison  v.  Weir,  71  App.  Div. 

not  show  that  it  was  the  business  of  (N.    Y.)    248,    75   N.   Y.    Supp.    909, 

the   defendant   to   carry   dogs,   or   to  revg.  34  Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    519,  69 

receive  pay  for  their  transportation,  N.  Y.  Supp.  957.     See  also  73  N.  Y. 

but  that,  as  a  matter  of  accommoda-  Supp.  1119. 


COMMON  CARRIERS.  99 

animals  under  an  ordinary  contract  of  carriage  were  not  the  sub- 
ject of  discussion  in  that  case,  as  such  questions  did  not  arise.  The 
rule  which  obtained  at  common  law  that  there  was  no  property  in 
a  dog,  it  being  held  to  be  ferae  naturae,  has  been  changed  by 
statute  and  judicial  construction,  and  recovery  may  now  be  had 
by  the  owner  for  a  loss  of  or  injury  to  a  dog  delivered  to  a  carrier 
for  transportation,  and  the  rules  governing  the  liability  of  the 
carrier  are  the  same  as  apply  to  other  classes  of  animals.^^  A 
conductor  is  justified  in  removing  from  a  passenger  car  on  his 
train  a  passenger,  who,  in  defiance  of  a  rule  of  the  company  against 
the  carrying  of  dogs  in  passenger  coaches,  has  a  dog  there  which 
he  refuses  to  remove  on  a  request  to  do  so  by  the  conductor.^^ 

§  42.  Carrier  under  a  contract  exempting  "  river  risks." 

Where  the  contract  of  a  carrier  for  the  United  States,  to  trans- 
port certain  goods  to  points  in  Montana,  contained  the  clause :. 
"  ISTo  river  risk  on  the  part  of  the  contractor  for  imavoidable  acci- 
dents," and,  while  the  goods  were  being  transported  up  a  river, 
they  were  burned  vnth.  the  steamer,  it  was  held  that  the  person  so 
contracting  was  but  a  private  carrier,  whose  liabilities  were 
limited,  and  he  was  only  bound  to  the  exercise  of  ordinary  care, 
and  that  loss  by  fire  on  board  the  steamer  transporting  the  goods 
fell  within  the  exemption  from  liability  for  loss  by  "  river  risks  " 
incorporated  in  the  contract." 

§  43.  Owners  of  passenger  elevators. 

The  courts  differ  as  to  the  exact  status  and  character  of  the 
owners  and  operators  of  elevators  used  in  public  office  buildings 
for  the  purpose  of  carrying  the  occupants  of  the  buildings  and 
the  public  from  one  floor  to  another  as  to  the  relations  between 
them  and  their  passengers,  and  as  to  the  rule  of  liability  appli- 
cable.    In  a  recent  New  York  case  the  court  said :     "  Doubtless 

12,  Winchell    v.    National    Express  E.   C.   L.    122,   31    L.   J.   Q.   B.   113; 

Co.,  64  Vt.  15,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Caa.  Richardson    v.    Northeastern    R.    Co., 

400,     note;     Stuart     v.     Crawley,     2  L.  R,  7    C.  P.  75,  20  VV.  R.  461. 

Btark.  323,  3  E.  C.  L.  428;   Dickson  13.  Gregory    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

V.   Great  Northern   R.   Co.,   18   Q.   B.  Co.,  100  Towa,  345,  69  N.  W.  532. 

Div.  170,  28  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  92;  14.  United      States     v.     Power,     0 

Harrison  v.  I^ondon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  Mont.  271,  12  Pac.  639. 


100  TIIK  LAW  OF  CA1UUER3. 

no  distinction  can  be  drawTi  between  vertical  transportation  and 
horizoutal  transportation,  or  transportation  along  the  surface  of 
tlie  earth.  If  the  relationship  between  the  parties  and  the  char- 
acter of  the  carrier  are  the  same  in  both  cases,  there  is  no  reason 
why  the  same  measure  of  diligence  should  not  be  exacted  in  one 
case  as  in  the  other.  But  the  defendant  was  not  a  common  carrier, 
and  received  no  compensation,  at  least  directly,  for  carrying  per- 
sons from  one  floor  to  another.  The  right  of  any  person  to  be 
carried  in  the  elevator  was  based  on  the  implied  invitation  to 
enter,  which  the  defendant  as  owner  of  the  property  is  deemed 
to  have  extended  to  all  who  might  have  business  on  the  premises." 
To  such  persons,  the  court  held,  the  law  imposed  upon  the  occupant 
or  owner  of  the  premises  the  duty  of  reasonable  prudence  and  care 
as  to  the  machinery  and  appliances  by  which  the  elevator  was 
moved,  and  in  its  maintenance  and  operation,  the  same  general 
standard  of  care  imposed  upon  the  owners  and  occupants  of  real 
property.  The  court  further  held  that  an  instruction  that  the 
same  rule  that  is  applicable  to  a  railroad  company,  as  to  its  road- 
bed, engine  and  machinery,  that  it  is  bound  to  exercise  the  utmost 
care  and  diligence  and  is  liable  for  the  slightest  neglect  against 
which  human  prudence  and  foresight  might  have  guarded,  is  ap- 
plicable to  the  owner  of  an  elevator,  was  erroneous.^     The  courts 

16.  Griffen  v.  Manice,  1&6  N.  Y.  passenger  through,  the  defective 
188,  59  N.  E.  925,  52  L.  R.  A.  922,  82  working  of  an  elevator  has  the  bur- 
Am.  St.  Rep.  630,  revg.  47  App  Div.  den  of  showing  that  the  injury  re- 
(N.  Y.)  70,  62  N.  Y.  Supp,  364;  Grif-  suited  from  defendant's  negligence. 
fen  V.  Manice,  36  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  Where  an  elevator  installed  by  a 
364,  73  N.  Y.  Supp.  559,  affd.  74  App.  reputable  firm  has  all  the  appliances 
Div.  371,  77  N.  Y.  Supp.  626  affd.  known  to  stop  the  machinery  when 
174  N.  Y.  505,  66  N.  E.  1109.  See  the  car  reaches  the  bottom  of  the 
also  McGrell  v.  Buffalo  Office  Build-  shaft,  even  if  the  operator  is  remiss 
ing  Co.,  153  N.  Y.  265,  47  N.  E.  305,  in  his  duties,  and  the  machinery  is 
revg.  90  Hun  (N.  Y.),  30,  35  N.  Y.  in  perfect  order,  as  shown  by  various 
Bupp.  599;  Hubener  v.  Heide,  62  inspections  by  the  person  installing 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  368,  70  N.  Y.  the  elevator,  insurance  companies, 
Bupp.  1115;  Grifhahn  v,  Kreiaer,  62  and  the  city, — one  inspection  being 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  414;  Tousey  v.  made  only  a  few  hours  before  an  ao- 
Rnberts,  114  N.  Y.  312,  21  N.  E,  399,  cident  occurring  by  reason  of  the  un- 
11  Am.  St.  Rep.  655.  expected  failure  of  the  machinery  to 

Burden  of  proof. — The  plaintiff  in  so  stop,   though   the  car  is   properly 

an   action  for   injuries   received  by  a  operated, — there    is    no    liability    for 


CX)MMON    CARRIERS. 


101 


of  Michigan,  following  this  decision,  have  also  held  that  the  owner 
of  a  building  having  an  elevator  for  passengers,  in  operating  such 
elevator,  is  not  "  bound  to  exercise  the  highest  degree  of  care  and 
diligence  of  a  cautious  person  so  far  as  human  care  and  foresight 
ean  go,"  but  is  only  bound  to  use  the  care  required  of  an  ordinary 
prudent  person  under  the  circumstances.^^  In  Massachusetts  it 
has  been  held  that  the  owner  of  a  passenger  elevator  for  the  use  of 
tenants  and  others  in  a  building,  being  under  no  obligation  to  carry 
passengers,  is  not  a  common  carrier  of  passengers,  within  the 
meaning  of  a  statute  relating  to  the  liabilities  of  common  carriers 
of  passengers,  and  hence  is  not  liable  for  the  death  of  a  passenger 
caused  by  the  elevator  being  out  of  repair."  In  Rhode  Island  it 
has  been  held  that  a  landlord  who  maintains  an  elevator  in  his 


the  accident,  though  there  has  been 
an  occasional  bumping  of  the  cars  on 
the  springs,  which  was  shown  not  to 
be  uncommon  or  to  have  been  the 
cause  of  the  accident.  Griffin  v. 
Manice,  36  Misc.  Rep.  364,  73  N.  Y. 
Supp.  559,  74  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  371, 
77  N.  Y.  Supp.  626,  affd.  174  N.  Y. 
506,  66  N.  E.  1109. 

16.  Burgess  v.  Stowe,  134  Mich. 
804,  10  Detroit  Leg.  N.  434,  96  N.  W. 
29.  Citing  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v, 
Coleman,  28  Mich.  440;  Grand  Rap- 
ids, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Huntley,  38  Mich. 
537,  31  Am.  Rep.  321;  Hall  v.  Mur- 
dock,  114  Mich.  233,  72  N.  W.  150. 

17.  Seaver  v.  Bradley,  179  Mass. 
329,  69  N.  E.  795,  88  Am.  St.  Rep. 
384.  See  Gibson  v.  International 
Trust  Co.,  186  Mass.  454,  72  N.  E. 
70;  Shattuck  v.  Rand,  142  Mass.  83, 
7  N.  E.  43.  In  Seaver  v.  Bradley, 
supra,  Holmes,  C.  J.,  said:  "The 
modern  liability  of  oommon  carriers 
of  goo<l3  is  a  resultant  of  the  two  long 
accepted  doctrines  that  bailees  were 
answerable  for  the  loss  of  goods  in 
their  charge,  although  happening 
without  thoir  fnult,  unless  it  was  due 


to  the  public  enemy,  and  that  those 
exercising  a  common  calling  wers 
bound  to  exercise  it  on  demand  and 
to  show  skill  in  their  calling.  Both 
doctrines  have  disappeared,  although 
they  have  left  this  hybrid  descendant. 
The  law  of  common  carriers  of  pas 
sengers,  so  far  as  peculiar  to  them, 
is  a  brother  of  the  half  blood.  It 
also  goes  back  to  the  old  principles 
concerning  common  callings.  Car 
riers  not  exercising  a  common  call- 
ing as  such  are  not  common  carriers, 
whatever  their  liabilities  may  be 
But  the  defendant  did  not  exercise 
the  common  calling  of  a  carrier,  a& 
sufficiently  appears  from  the  fact 
that  he  might  have  shut  the  elevatoi 
door  in  the  plaintiff's  face  and  arbi- 
trarily have  refused  to  carry  him 
withofut  ir  curring  any  liability  to 
him.  Apart  from  that  consideration, 
manifestly  it  would  be  contrary  to 
the  ordinary  usages  of  English  speech 
to  describe  by  such  words  the  main- 
taining of  an  elevator  as  an  induce- 
ment to  tenants  to  occupy  rooms 
which   the   defendant  wished   to   lot." 


102 


TUE  LAW  OF  C-UUUERS. 


private  buildinf;;  for  the  use  of  tenants  and  their  employes  and 
customers  is  not  a  common  carrier,  nor  bound  to  the  same  degree 
of  care  as  that  imposed  upon  a  common  carrier,  but  is  bound  only 
to  exorcise  reasonable  care  for  the  safety  of  those  who  enter  upon 
his  premises  and  use  the  elevator."*  In  the  Federal  courts  and 
the  courts  of  some  of  the  other  States  it  has  been  held  that  persons 
operatiui;-  elevators  are  carriers  of  passengers,  the  relation  between 
them  and  their  passengers  being  similar  to  that  between  an  ordi- 
nary common  carrier  and  those  carried  by  it,  and  that  they  are 
subject  to  the  same  rules  as  to  the  degree  of  care  required  and  the 
onus  of  proof  in  case  of  injury  from  defects  in  or  the  giving  away 
of  machinery  as  are  applicable  to  common  carriers  of  passengers. 
The  degree  of  care  required  is  variously  stated  to  be  the  utmost 
human  care  and  foresight,  the  highest  degree  of  care,  extraordi- 
nary care,  and  the  highest  degree  of  care  and  diligence  practically 
consistent  with  the  efficient  use  and  operation  of  such  modes  of 
transportation.^^     In  Missouri  it  has  been  held  that  a  company 


17a.  Edwards  v.  Manufacturers' 
Bldg.  Co.,  27  R.  I.  248,  61  Atl.  643. 
See  Black-well  v.  O'Gorman,  22  R.  I. 
638,  49  Atl.  28. 

18.  V.  S.— Mitchell  v.  Marker,  63 
Fed.  139,  22  U.  S.  App.  325,  10  '~'.  C. 
A.  306,  25  L.  R.  A.  133. 

D.  C. — Jilunsey  v.  Webb,  37  App. 
D.  C.  185. 

Ala. — Morgan  v.  Saks,  38  So.  848 
(Ala.   1905). 

CaZ.— Treadwell  v.  Whittier,  80 
Cal.  574,  22  Pac.  265,  5  L.  R.  A.  498, 
13  Am.  St.  Rep.  175. 

III. — Chicago  Exchange  Bldg.  Co. 
V.  Nelson,  197  111.  334,  64  N.  E.  369, 
affg.  98  111.  App.  189;  Springer  v. 
Schultz,  205  111.  144,  68  N.  E.  753, 
afTg.  105  111.  App.  544;  Doposit  Co. 
V.  Sollitt,  172  111.  222,  50  N.  E.  178; 
Hodges  V.  Percival,  132  111.  53,  23 
N.  E.  23;  Western  Union  Telegraph 
Co.  V.  Woods,  88  111.  App.   375;   An- 


derson Art  Co.  V.  Greenburg,  118  III. 
App.  220. 

Ind.—Ohio  Valley  Trust  Co.  v. 
Wernke,  84  N.  E.  999  (Ind.  App. 
1908). 

TT?/.— Hotel  Co.  v.  Camp,  97  Ky. 
424,  30  S.  W.  1010. 

Minn. — Goodsell  v.  Taylor,  41 
Minn.  207,  42  N.  W.  873,  4  L.  R. 
A.  673,   16  Am.  St.  Rep.  700. 

Pa. — Riland  v.  Hirshler,  7  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  384. 

Tex. — Farmers'  &  Mechanics'  Nat. 
Bank  v.  Hawks,  128  S.  W.  147  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.   1910). 

Tcnn. — Southern,  etc.,  Ass'n  v. 
Lawson,  97  Tenn.  367,  37  S.  W.  86, 
56  Am.  St.  Rep.  804. 

^yash. — Perrault  v.  Emporium  De- 
partment Store  Co.,  71  Wash.  523, 
128  Pac.  1049;  Atkeson  v.  Jackson 
Estate,  —  Wash.  — ,  130  Pac.  102. 

Wis. — Oberndorfer  v.  Pabst,  100 
Wia.  505,  76  N.  W.  338. 


COMMON    CAKRIERS.  103 

operating  an  elevator  in  its  office  building  for  the  use  of  tenants 
and  their  visitors  is  a  common  carrier  of  passengers  for  hire,  and, 
though  not  an  insurer  of  the  safety  of  a  passenger,  must  use  such 
care,  prudence,  and  caution  to  prevent  injury  to  a  passenger  as  a 
very  careful  and  prudent  person  would  use  and  exercise  in  a  like 
business  and  under  similar  circumstances.^^     And  in  Illinois  the 
rule  has  been  carried  to  the  extent  of  holding  that  the  owner  of  a 
building  in  which  a  freight  elevator  is  operated,  who  permits  an 
employe  of  his  tenant  to  ride  thereon  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties, 
occupies  the  relation  of  a  common  carrier  of  passengers  for  hire 
towards  such  employe,  the  hire  received  being  the  rent  of  the  build- 
ing, and  is  held  to  the  highest  degree  of  care  to  prevent  injury  to 
Buch  employe."*'    And  in  Indiana  it  is  held  that  the  owner  of  an 
office  building,  or  an  apartment  house,  who  maintains  and  operates 
therein  a  passenger  elevator  for  the  use  of  his  tenants  and  the 
public  who  choose  to  use  the  same,  is,  as  to  those  who  ride  in  the 
elevator,  a  "  common  carrier  of  passengers  "  for  hire.^"^     Some 
of  the  cases  maintain  that  this  strict  liability  is  more  expedient 
and  conforms  better  with  the  present  needs  of  society.     For  al- 
though an  elevator  operator  is  not  technically  a  common  carrier, 
yet  the  considerations  of  public  policy  which  require  extraordinar 
diligence  of  the  latter,  would  seem  to  require  a  similar  degree  o. 
diligence  of  the  former.     In  each  case  the  passenger's  safety  de- 
pends wholly  upon  the  operator's  vigilance ;  in  each  case  the  proba- 
bility of  a  serious  accident,  unless  extraordinary  vigilance  is  exer- 
cised, is  imminent.     The  objection  that  an  elevator  operator  re- 
ceives no  compensation  for  the  carriage  is  met  by  the  fact  that  he 
receives  adequate  compensation,  indirectly  at  least,  from  the  rent 
paid  by  the  tenants.     In  Pennsylvania  it  has  been  held  that  where 
a  city  operates  an  elevator  in  a  public  building,  the  rule  applicable 
to  common  carriers,  that  the  happening  of  an  accident  to  a  pas- 

19.  Mo. — Cooper  v.  Century  Realty  v.    Stix,    88    S.    W.    108     (Mo.    App. 

Co.,    224    Mo.    709,    123    S.    W.    848;  1905). 

Goldsmith  v.  Holland   Bldg.  Co.,   182  20.  Springer  v.  Ford,  189  111.  430, 

Mo.   597,   81   S.   VV.    1112;    Becker   v.  59  N.  E.  953,  52  L.  R.  A.  930. 

Lincoln    Real    Estate,    etc.,    Co.,    174  20a.  Ohio     Valley     Trust     Co.     v. 

Mo.  246,  73  S.  W.  581;  Lee  v.  Knapp,  Wcrnke,  42   Tnd.   App.  326,  84  N.   E. 

155  Mo.  610,  58  S.  W.  458;   Hcnslor  999;   TippeK'anop  Loan  &  Trust  Co.  v. 

Jester,  —  Tnd.  App.  — .  101  N.  E.  915. 


10-i  iii^  ^-^VV  OF  CAKRLERS. 

sengor  raises  prima  facie  a  presumption  of  negligence  on  the  part 
of  the  carrier,  applies.^**  In  a  recent  New  York  case  it  was  held 
that  an  unexplained  drop  of  an  elevator  car  of  from  twelve  to 
fifteen  inches,  when  a  person  enters  it  with  a  loaded  truck,  this 
being  the  ordinary  use  of  the  elevator,  is  such  an  unusual  occur- 
rence as  requires  the  owner  of  the  elevator  to  explain  its  cause,  or 
that  it  was  without  his  fault.^" 

§  44.  Car-switching  companies. 

A  railroad  company  in  the  general  business  of  switching  cars 
for  all  railroads  which  will  furnish  it  business  is  a  common  car- 
rier.'^ But  a  belt  line  railway  company,  oAvning  locomotives  and 
one  flat  car  and  about  fifteen  miles  of  track,  which  makes 
connection  with  various  railroad  companies,  and  switches  cars 
for  these  companies  to  stockyards  and  other  railroad  connec- 
tions, but  which  has  no  depot  or  loading  facilities,  furnishes  no 
cars,  makes  no  charges  to  shippers  or  contract  with  them,  and  is 
paid  for  its  services  by  the  railroad  companies,  is  not  a  common 
carrier."*  So,  the  owner  of  a  coal  mine  or  a  lumber  mill  who 
constructs  and  operates  a  railroad  switch  or  spur  for  the  purpose 
of  getting  his  ovm  products  to  market  is  not  a  common  carrier."'' 
A  company  whose  principal  business  is  switching  cars  for  other 
railroad  companies,  its  tracks  being  connected  with  those  of  the 
other  railroads  by  a  transfer  switch,  and  with  mills,  elevators,  and 
manufactories  near  where  its  business  is  transacted,  will  be  held 
liable,  as  a  common  carrier,  for  the  loss  of  a  car  taken,  without 
orders  of  the  owner,  to  a  manufactory,  to  be  loaded  and  then 
switched  to  the  transfer  track  for  shipment.^^    So,  a  railroad  com- 

20b.  Fox   V.    City   of    Philadelphia,  56    Tex.    Civ.   App.    4G8,    121    S.    W. 

208  Pa.  127,  57  All.  356,  65  L.  R.  A.  1127. 

214.  21b.  Straight  Creek  Mining  Co.  v. 

20c.  Harris  v.  Guggenheim,  138  N.  Straight  Creek  Coal  &  Coke  Co.,  135 

Y.  Supp.  1037.  Ky.     536,     122     S.    W.    842;     E.     E. 

21.  Peoria,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   United  Taenzer  Co.  v.  Chicago,  R.  I.  &  p.  R. 

States  Rolling-stock  Co.,  28  111.  App.  Co.,   170   Fed.   240,   95   C.   C.  A.   433 

79;   Kansas  City  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Tenn.). 

Rosebrook-Josey    Grain    Co.    —    Tex.  22.  Peoria,  etc.  R.   Co.  v.   Chicago, 

Civ.  App.  — ,  114  S.  W.  436.  etc.,   R.   Co.,   109  111.   135,   18  Am.  & 

21a.  Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Henaon,  Eng.  R.  Cas.  506,   50  Am.  Rep.   605. 

See  also,  §  14,  ante. 


COMMON    CARRIER^.  105 

pany  which  takes  loaded  cars  from  its  connection  with  another 
railroad,  and  transfers  them  by  a  switch  engine  over  a  portion  of 
its  own  track  to  a  spur  of  its  own,  receiving  its  compensation  from 
the  connecting  road,  is  liable  as  a  common  carrier  for  the  safety 
of  the  goods  transported,  regardless  of  the  distance  from  the  place 
of  receipt  to  that  of  delivery.^^  But  a  corporation  which,  being 
under  no  legal  obligation  to  do  so,  voluntarily  contracts  to  switch 
cars  over  its  tracks,  between  two  or  more  railways,  for  which  ser- 
vice it  collects  a  certain  switching  charge  for  switching  the  cars, 
loaded  or  empty,  but  charges  no  traffic  rates  on  the  freight  trans- 
ported or  transferred  in  the  cars  in  the  performance  of  such  ser- 
vice, assumes  none  of  the  responsibilities  of  a  common  carrier, 
but  only  those  of  a  swithchman.^  The  fact  that  a  motor  car  for 
mail  and  passengers  was  run  over  a  spur  track  belonging  to  a 
private  carrier  does  not  establish  the  fact  that  the  spur  was  oper- 
ated as  a  public  carrier  of  freight.^**  A  belt  line,  switching  whole 
trains  on  its  own  line  from  a  given  station  to  stockyards  is  doing 
more  than  a  mere  switching  business,  and  is  a  common  carrier, 
amenable  to  rules  governing  common  carriers,  and  must  be  held  to 
the  same  diligence.^^**  A  railroad,  which  serves  business  houses 
located  along  a  spur  track  by  delivering  to  them  cars  of  freight 
and  cars  to  be  freighted  and  shipped,  is  a  common  carrier  with 
respect  to  the  use  it  makes  of  the  track,  and  is,  as  such,  bound 
to  treat  the  houses  located  along  the  track  without  discrimination, 
and  cannot  discontinue  its  service  as  to  one  and  continue  it  as  to 
others.^''° 

§  45.  Companies  engaged  in  supplying  messenger  service. 

A  corporation  incorporated  as  a  telegraph  company,  which  in 
addition  to  its  telegraph  service  maintains  a  staff  of  messenger 
boys  which  it  furnishes  to  its  patrons  and  others  needing  their 
service,  for  which  a  charge  is  made  based  upon  the  time  employed, 

23.  MissoTiri  Pac.  R.  Oo.  v.   Wich-       Stave   Co.,   95   Ark.   449,    130   S.   W. 
ita,  etc.,  Grocery  Co.,  55  Kans.  225,      452. 

40  Pac.   899.  24b.  Fleming  v.  Kansas  City  S.  B. 

24.  Kpntucky    &    I.    Bridge    Co.   v.  R.  Co.,  89  Mo.  App.  129. 
Louisville  4,  N.  R.  Co.,  37  Fed.   567,  24c.  W.    C.   Agee    &    Co.    v.   Louis- 
2  L.  R.  A.  289,  2  Inters.  Com.  R.  351.  ville  &  N.   R.   Co.,   142  Ala.   344,   37 

24a.  Ed;jar    Lumber   Co.   v.   Cornie      So.  680. 


lOG 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


is  not  a  common  carrier  as  to  the  services  rendered  by  the  messen- 
gers.^    "Where  a  messenger  company  had  installed  call  boxes  in 


25.  Ilirsch  v.  Amorican  Dist.  Tele- 
graph Co.,  112  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
265,  98  N.  Y.  ^iipp.  371,  revg.  48 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  370,  95  N.  Y.  Supp. 
£>G2,  wherein  it  was  also  held  that 
the  facts  that  phiintifl"  told  the  man- 
ager of  one  of  the  company's  ofticcs 
that  he  wanted  a  hoy,  and  accepted 
one  who  was  olTered  to  him,  and  de- 
livered to  tlie  boy  a  package,  with 
instructions  to  deliver  it  at  a  cer- 
tain place,  did  not  show  a  contract 
between  the  plaintifT  and  the  com- 
pany for  the  delivery  of  the  pack- 
age, rendering  it  liable  on  failure  of 
the  boy  to  deliver  the  package.  Mur- 
ray V.  Postal  Telegraph  &  Cable  Co., 
210  Mass.  188,  96  N.  E.  316. 

It  had  been  previously  held  in  New 
York  that  a  company  which  fur- 
nishes messages  to  any  who  may  de- 
sire them  is  a  common  carrier,  and 
is  liable  as  such  for  any  property 
which  is  entrusted  to  its  messeng- 
ers to  deliver.  Sandford  v.  American 
Dist.  Telegraph  Co.,  6  Misc.  (N.  Y.) 
534,  58  St.  Rep,  (N.  Y.)  16,  27  N,  Y. 
Supp.  142,  31  Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.) 
147;  13  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  88,  34 
N.  Y.  Supp.  144,  68  St.  Rep.  (N.  Y.) 
191.  The  court  below  held  that  the 
messenger  was  the  agent  of  the  com- 
pany for  the  services  required  and 
that  the  company  was  bound  by  this 
act.  Although  the  judgment  was  re- 
versed by  the  appellate  court  on  the 
ground  of  a  variance  between  the 
pleadings  and  the  proof,  the  latter 
court  expressed  the  opinion  that,  in 
a  proper  form  of  action  and  under 
the  facts  as  they  were  proven,  the 
defendant  would  have  been  liable  as 
a  common  carrier;   that  the  evidence 


was  Buflicient  to  support  an  action 
ex  delicto,  but  not  an  action  cw  con- 
tractu. 

It  had  also  been  previously  held 
that  a  telegraph  messenger  com- 
pany whose  business  includes  the  de- 
livery of  parcels  by  its  messengers 
for  those  who  choose  to  employ  it,  is 
liable  for  any  loss  sustained  by  the 
employer  which  resulted  from  a  mes- 
senger's disregard  of  the  instruc- 
tions given  to  him.  Feibcr  v.  Man- 
hattan Dist.  Telegraph  Co.,  3  N.  Y. 
Supp.  116,  20  St.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  95, 
22  Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  121,  affg.  21 
Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  11;  reargument 
denied,  4  N.  Y.  Supp.  555,  23  St.  Rep. 
(N.  Y.)    57. 

Liable  for  damages  where  horse  in 
charge  of  messenger  ran  away. — 
Tlie  plaintiffs  hired  a  buggy  and 
horses,  and,  on  returning,  stopped  at 
the  office  of  the  District  Telegraph 
Company  and  asked  for  a  boy  who 
could  drive  the  horses  back  to  the 
livery  stable.  A  boy  was  sent  out 
who  took  charge  of  the  horses,  but 
owing  to  his  negligence  or  incompe- 
tence, the  horses  ran  away  while  he 
was  driving  them,  and  injured  them- 
selves and  the  vehicle.  In  an  action 
to  recover  damages  therefor,  it  was 
held  that  the  company  was  liable  for 
the  damages  thus  occasioned,  and  that 
the  plaintiffs,  although  they  were 
merely  bailees  for  hire  as  to  the 
horses  and  buggy,  could  maintain  the 
action  to  recover  such  damages. 
American  Dist.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Walker, 
72  Md.  454,  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  479,  35 
Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  91. 

See,  also,  Newton  v.  Pope,  1  Cow. 
(N.  Y.)    109,  holding  that  one  hired 


COMMON    CARRIERS.  107 

houses,  and  was  engaged  in  the  carriage  of  small  hand  packages 
bj  means  of  messenger  bojs  sent  in  response  to  calls,  for  hire,  and 
a  package  containing  money  was  intrusted  to  one  of  its  messengers 
sent  in  response  to  a  call,  without  giving  notice  of  the  character 
or  contents  of  the  package,  the  company  was  not  liable  as  a  common 
carrier  for  the  loss  of  the  package.^^  The  knowledge  of  a  messen- 
ger company  that  messengers  sent  out  by  it  were  sometimes  em- 
ployed to  carry  money  does  not  render  the  company  a  common 
carrier,  where  the  company  exercises  no  control  over  the  messenger 
during  his  employment  by  a  patron.^®*  As  to  messages  sent  by 
companies  of  this  kind,  they  are  under  the  same  liability  as  tele- 
graph companies,  and  are  responsible,  not  as  common  carriers,  but 
only  for  such  losses  as  result  from  their  negligence,  or  the  negli- 
gence of  their  servants.^^  Although  they  are  in  a  certain  sense 
and  to  a  certain  extent  common  carriers,  must  serve  impartially 
all  who  require  their  services,  are  liable  on  proof  of  negligence, 
and  under  some  circumstances,  and  always  by  special  contract, 
they  may  make  themselves  insurers,  if  such  a  carrier  does  not  cus- 
tomarily transport  money,  it  will  not  be  liable  in  the  absence  of 
notice  for  the  loss  of  money  contained  in  an  envelope  delivered  t5 
a  messenger  in  its  employ."* 

to  drive  horses,  in  whose  hands  they  that    the    package    contained    money, 

are    injured,    is   only   responsible   for  and  no  special  contract  was  made  aa 

negligence,  unskillfulness,    or    willful  to  its  carriage. 

misconduct;    the    burden    of    proving  26a.   Haskell  v.  Boston  Dist.  Mes- 

which  is  on  the  hirer;  Barker  v.  De-  seuger  Co.,   190  Mass.   189,   76  N.  E. 

ment,  9  Gill    (Md.),  13,  52  Am.  Dec.  215,   2   L.   R.   A.    (N.   S.)    1091,    112 

670;   Brind  v.  Dale,  2  M.  &  Rob.  80,  Am.  St.  Rep.  324  (1906),  where  a  bill 

8    C.    &    P.    207,   34   E.  C.   L,   355;  for  rent  was  intrusted  to  a  messenger 

Searle  v.  Laverick,  L.  R.  9  Q.  B.  122.  furnished    by    a   messenger   company, 

26.  Oilman  v.  Postal  Telegraph  Co.,  and  the  amount  collected  by  the  mes- 

48  Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    372,  95  N.  Y.  senger,  the  company  did  not  become  a 

Supp.     564,     where     plaintiff,    before  common    carrier    and    insurer   of    the 

delivering  a  package  of  bank  bills  to  bill  and  the  money, 

a    messenger   of   the   defendant   com-  27.  See  Telegraph  Companies,  §  37, 

pany,     called     into     his     service,     so  ante.      White   v.    Pustiil   Telegraph    & 

wrapped  the  bills  in  a  newspaper  as  Cable  Co.,  25  App.  Cas.   (D.  C. )   364, 

to  conceal  the  character  of  the  pack-  33  Wash.  L.  Rep.  295,  4  A.  &  E.  Ann. 

age  and  to  create  an  impression  that  Cas.  767. 

it   was   comparatively   valueless,    and  27a.   Wliite   v.   Postal   Telegraph   & 

no  notice  was  given  to  the  defendant.  Cable  Co.,  supra. 
through    Its   messenger   or   otherwise. 


108 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


§  46.  Carriers  of  money  and  bank-bills. 

A  ooiumou  ciirrior  engaged  in  transporting  goods,  wares,  and 
mcreiiandise  does  not  thereby  hold  hinisolf  out  as  a  common  car- 
rier of  gold  and  bank-bills.^''  The  weight  of  authority  is  in  favor 
of  the  proposition  that  there  is  no  presumption  that  an  ordinary 
carrier,  a  common  carrier  engaged  in  the  transportation  of  goods, 
wares,  and  merchandise,  assumes  to  act  as  a  common  carrier  in 
respect  to  the  txansportation  of  money,  and  that  the  assumption 
of  such  liability  must  be  proven  by  one  who  would  hold  the  carrier 
responsible.""  In  the  absence  of  evidence,  the  carriage  of  money 
was  held  not  to  be,  strictly  speaking,  in  the  line  of  duty  of 
a  carrier  holding  itself  out  only  as  a  carrier  of  goods, 
wares,  and  merchandise,  for  the  reason  that  money,  bank- 
bills,  notes,  checks,  etc.,  do  not  come  within  the  description 
of  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  as  applied  to  carriers. ^^'^     A 


27b.  Citizens  Bank  v.  Nantucket 
Steamboat  Co.,  2  Story  (U.  S.),  16; 
Lee  V.  Burgess,  9  Bush  (Ky.),  652. 

It  must  be  clearly  proved  that  they 
had  held  themselves  out  to  the  public 
as  common  carriers  of  bank-bills  for 
hire,  and  that  they  had  authorized 
the  master  to  contract  on  their  ac- 
count, and  not  on  his  own,  for  the 
carriage  thereof.  Citizens  Bank  v. 
Nantucket  Steamboat  Co.,  supra.  The 
liability  of  the  carrier  for  loss  of 
bank-bills  will  depend  upon  the  fact 
whether  or  not  he  received  the  bills 
to  carry  for  compensation.  Kirtland 
T.  Montgomery,  1  Swan  (Tenn.),  452. 

27c.  U.  8. — Kuter  v.  Michigan  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  1  Biss.  (U,  S.)  35,  14  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,955,  1  Pittsb.  Leg.  J. 
(Pa.)  30,  10  West.  L.  J.  416,  a  clause 
in  the  charter  of  a  railroad  company, 
requiring  it  to  transport  "  all  mer- 
chandise and  property,"  does  not 
oblige  it  to  become  a  comon  carrier 
of  money. 

D.  C. —  White  v.  Poetal  Telegraph 
A  Cable   Co.,   25   App.    Cas.    (D.   a) 


364,  33  Wash.  L.  Rep.  295,  4  A.  &  E. 
Ann.  Cas.  767. 

III. — Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Thomp- 
son, 19  111.  578. 

Ky. —  Chesapeake  &  O.  R.  Co.  v. 
Hall,  136  Ky.  379,  124  S.  W.  372. 

La. —  Sulakowski  v.  Flint,  22  La. 
Ann.  6,  the  carrier  is  liable  on  proof 
that  it  received  specie  as  freight  to 
be  transported  and  delivered. 

N.  r.— -Sewall  v.  Allen,  6  Wend. 
335,  revg.  Allen  v.  Sewall,  2  Wend. 
337;  Oilman  v.  Postal  Telegraph  Co., 
48  Misc.  Rep.  372,  95  N.  Y.  Supp. 
564. 

Eng. —  Butler  v.  Basing,  26  C.  &  P. 
613,  12  E.  C.  L.  764. 

27d.  White  v.  Postal  Telegraph  & 
Cable  Co.,  supra;  Citizens  Bank  v. 
Nantucket  Steamboat  Co.,  2  Story 
(U.  S.),  16;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Thompson,  19  111.  578,  carriers  are 
not  responsible  for  loss  of  bank-bills 
contained  in  baggage,  unless  this  is 
specially  disclosed  to  them;  they  are 
never  common  carriers  of  bank-bills, 
for  that  these  are  not  goods  and  oha* 


COMMON    CARRIERS. 


109 


carrier  may  be  a  common  carrier  of  money,  as  well  as  of  other 
property,  but  it  must  be  shown  that  the  carrier  made  the  carriage 
of  money  a  pan  of  its  ordinary  or  general  business,"®  or  that  it 
■was  its  general  custom  or  usage  to  receive  and  transport  packages 
of  money  or  bank-bills  for  hire,"'  or  that  it  became  such  a  carrier 


tels,  with  regard  to  them,  for  which 
they  are  responsible;  Lee  v.  Burgess, 
9  Bush  (Ky.),  652,  while  money  and 
bank-bills  are  goods  in  a  certain  sense 
and  for  certain  purposes,  they  are  not 
ordinarily  so  considered;  Farmers', 
etc.,  Bank  v.  Champlain  Transp.  Co., 
23  Vt.  186,  18  Vt.  131,  16  Vt.  52. 

27e.  Kemp  v.  Coughtry,  11  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  107;  Sewall  v.  Allen,  6  Wend. 
(N.  y.)  335,  revg.  Allen  v.  Sewall,  2 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  327;  Oilman  v.  Pos- 
tal Telegraph  Co.,  48  Misc.  Rep.  (N. 
Y.)  372,  95  N.  Y.  Supp.  564;  Sand- 
ford  V.  American  Dist.  Telegraph  Co., 
13  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  88,  34  N.  Y. 
Supp.  144;  6  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  534, 
27  N.  Y.  Supp.  142. 

An  express  company  offering  to 
carry  money  for  hire  is  a  common 
carrier  thereof,  under  South  Dakota 
Rev.  Civ.  Code  1903,  §  1577,  provid- 
ing that  every  one  who  ofTers  to  carry 
persons,  property,  or  messages  is  a 
common  carrier  of  whatever  he  thus 
offers  to  carry.  Piatt  v.  Lecooq,  150 
Fed.  391   (U.  S.  C.  C,  S.  D.,  1906). 

See,  also.  Express  Companies,  chap. 
II,  §  9,  ante. 

27f.  Ala. —  Carey  v.  Meagher,  33 
Ala.  630,  the  owners  of  a  steamboat 
are  responsible  as  common  carriers 
for  the  loss  of  a  cash  letter  delivered 
to  the  clerk,  if  the  jury  find  that  it 
Ib  the  general  custom  of  steamboats 
to  carry  such  letters,  although  thoy 
«r«  delivered  to  the  clerk  and  carried 
without  charge;  Hosea  v.  MoCrary, 
12   Ala.   349,  a  delivery   to  the  clerk 


is  a  delivery  to  the  master  for  the 
purpose  of  charging  him,  if  the  gen- 
eral usage  of  boats  to  take  charge  of 
such  letters  is  shown;  Knox  v.  Rives, 
14  Ala.  249,  it  is  proper  to  leave  to 
the  jury  the  question  of  fact,  whether 
cash  letters  belonged  to  that  class  or 
character  of  goods  which  the  boat  un- 
dertook to  carry  for  hire. 

Ind. —  Cincinnati,  etc..  Mail  Line 
Co.  V.  Boal,  15  Ind.  345,  the  usage 
must  be  such  as  had  grown  up  with 
the  consent  of  the  carrier;  a  mere 
accommodation  usage  is  not  suflBcient. 
Ky. — Robertson  v.  Kennedy,  2  Dana 
(Ky.)    430. 

Mass. — Dwight  v.  Brewster,  1  Pick. 
(Mass.)   50,  11  Am.  Dec.  133. 

Mo. —  Chouteau  v.  Steamboat  St. 
Anthony,  16  Mo.  216,  it  must  be  its 
usage  to  carry  bills  for  hire,  or  the 
known  usage  of  the  trade  that  it 
should  carry  them;  Chouteau  v. 
Steamboat  St.  Anthony,  20  Mo,  519, 
affg.  16  Mo.  216,  proof  of  a  custom  by 
boats  to  carry  money  for  customers 
does  not  establish  a  custom  for  hire; 
Whitmore  v.  Steamboat  Caroline,  20 
Mo.  513,  owners  not  liable  for  moneys 
intrusted  to  a  clerk  by  a  passenger, 
unless  a  known  and  established  uiAage 
for  a  steamboat  to  carry  money  for 
hire,  on  account  of  the  owners,  is 
shown. 

N.  H. —  Elkins  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  23  N.  H.  (3  Post.)  275,  evidence 
that,  twice  in  two  years,  a  railroad 
company  had  carried  goods  in  pas- 
senger trains,  does  not  tend  to  prove 


110 


TIIK   LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


by  reason  of  a  special  oantract.^"  In  order  to  make  a  carrier 
liable  as  a  conmu)n  carrier  of  money  notice  should  be  given  that 
the  package  contains  money,  if  tlie  carrier  docs  not  customarily 
transport  money  for  hire.^"'  ]^ut  if  the  general  custom  or  usage 
of  the  carrier  be  established  by  the  proofs,  the  carrier  will  bo 
liable  as  an  insurer  for  losses  occurring  otlierwisc  than  through 
the  excepted  risks."*^'  The  carrier  will  not  be  liable  as  an  insurer, 
however,  if  the  transportation  be  not  for  hire.  In  such  a  case  the 
carrier  is  a  mere  mandatary  or  gratuitous  bailee,  liable  for  loss 
only  by  reason  of  its  gross  negligence.^'-'  The  carrier's  duty  to 
inquire  as  to  the  value  of  property  offered  for  transportation,  tho 
shipper's  duty  to  state  the  character  and  value  of  the  goods,  and 
the  effect  of  fraudulent  concealment  or  misrepresentation  of  the 
character  or  value  of  the  shipment  are  discussed  in  a  subsequent 
chapter.'"" 

§  47.  An  irrigation  company. 

An  irrigation  company  which  appropriates  the  water  of  a  public 
stream,  and  supplies  the  same,  under  contracts,  to  landowners  who 


that  they  intended  to  hold  themselves 
out  as  common  carriers  of  goods  on 
passenger  trains. 

N.  Y.— Sewall  v.  Allen,  6  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  337,  carrier  held  not  liable 
where  it  was  the  usage  of  persona 
sending  money  to  compensate  the 
master  of  the  boat,  who  had  been  for- 
bidden  to  carry  money. 

Vt. — Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Cham- 
plain  Transp.  Co.,  23  Vt.  186,  56  Am. 
Dec.  68,  the  carrier  suffering  the  cap- 
tain to  continue  to  carry  bank-bills 
ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  fixing  its 
responsibility,  although  the  captain 
was  permitted  to  take  the  perqui- 
sites. 

27g.  Powell  V.  Mills,  30  Miss.  231, 
64  Am.  Dec.  158. 

27h.  Oilman  v.  Postal  Telegraph 
Co.,  48  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  372,  95 
N.    Y.    Supp.    564;    White   v.    Postal 


Telegraph  &  Cable  Co.,  25  App.  Cas. 

(D.  C.)  364,  4  A.  &  E.  Ann.  Cas.  767; 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  19 

111.  578;  Hayes  v.  Wells,  23  Cal.  185; 

American     Dist.     Telegraph     Co.     v. 

Walker,  72  Md.  454,  20  Am.  St.  Rep. 

479,  20  Atl.  1. 

271    Dwight    V.    Brewster,    1    Pick. 

(Mass.)   50;  Harrington,  v.  McShane, 

2  Watts  (Pa.),  443;  Kirtland  v. 
Montgomery,  1  Swan  (Tenn.),  452; 
Farmers',  etc..  Bank  v.  Champlain 
Transp.  Co.,  23  Vt.  186,  18  Vt.  131, 
16  Vt.  52. 

27j.  Haynie  v.  Waring,  29  Ala. 
263;  Lee  v.  Burgess,  9  Bush  (Ky.), 
652;  Mechanics',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Gordon, 
5  La.  Ann.  606;  Chouteau  v.  Steam- 
boat St.  Anthony,  20  Mo.  519,  affg. 
16  Mo.  216.  But  see  Kemp  v.  Cough- 
try,  11  Johns.  (N.  Y.)   107. 

27k.  See  chap.  X,  §§  36,  37,  38,  pos^ 


COMMON    CARRIERS.  Ill 

had  no  prior  rights  in  the  waters  of  such  stream,  is  not  a  common 
carrier.  Such  a  company,  appropriating  the  water  of  a  natural 
stream  and  directing  it  to  a  beneficial  use,  becomes  the  proprietor 
of  the  water,  and  as  such  has  the  right  to  sell,  transfer  and  deliver 
it;  and  such  right  can  only  be  defeated  by  a  subsequent  failure 
tc  apply  it  to  a  beneficial  use.^  A  canal  company,  contracting  to 
furnish  rice  farmers  a  sufficient  supply  of  water  to  irrigate  their 
lands  during  the  planting  season,  is  not  liable  for  damages  result- 
ing from  an  insufficient  supply,  where  such  insufficiency  is  attrib- 
utable to  the  inadequacy  of  the  fall  of  rain,  from  which  source  the 
canal  is  supplied.^  A  water  company,  being  a  public  sen-ice  cor- 
poration, and  engaged  in  supplying  for  domestic,  irrigating,  and 
other  purposes  water  appropriated  under  the  laws  of  Califoniia, 
contracted  to  furnish  a  certain  amount  of  water,  "  subject  to  such 
reasonable  general  rules  and  regulations  "  as  it  might  adopt.  The 
contract  provided  that  if  the  company's  supply  of  water  was 
shortened  by  act  of  God,  drought,  etc.,  the  lands  to  which  the 
water  was  attached  should  be  entitled  "  to  only  such  water  as  can 
be  supplied  .  .  .  after  the  full  supply  shall  have  been  fur- 
nished to  all  cities  and  towns  "  dependent  on  the  company  for 
water,  and  the  company  "  shall  not  be  responsible  for  any  defi- 
ciency of  water  occasioned  by  any  of  the  above  causes."  It  was 
held  that  the  consumer  was  subject,  in  time  of  drought,  to  an  ap- 
portionment of  water  among  all  consumers,  and  he  was  not  en- 
titled to  his  full  quota  as  soon  as  cities  and  towns  were  supplied.^" 
Under  the  Constitution  of  Idaho,  which  declares  the  use  of  all 
waters  appropriated  for  sale,  rental,  or  distribution  to  be  a  public 
use,  and  the  right  to  collect  compensation  therefor  a  franchise, 
•which  cannot  be  exercised  except  by  authority  of,  and  in  the  man- 
ner prescribed  by  law,  and  which  authorizes  the  legislature  to 
provide,  as  it  has  done,  for  the  fixing  of  maximum  rates  to  be 
charged  for  water  so  sold,  an  irrigation  company  appropriating 

28.  Wyatt  v.  Larimer  &  W.  Irrig.  715.  Compare  Canal  Co.  v.  Jenkins, 
Co.,  1  Colo.  App.  480,  29  Pac.  906.  1  Colo.  App.  425,  20  Pac.  381. 

29.  Landers  v.  Garland  Canal  Co.,  30.  Souther  v.  San  Diego  Flume 
52  La.  Ann.  1465,  27  So.  727.  See,  Co.,  121  Fed.  347,  57  C.  C.  A.  561, 
also,  Carr  v.  Miller-Morris  Canal,  afTg.  San  Diego  Flume  Co.  v.  Souther, 
Irrig.,  etr.,   Co.,   105   La.   239,   29   So.  112   Fed.   228. 


112  iTiB  I>AW  OF  CARRIERS. 

water  for  sale  has  no  authority  to  make  a  distinction  between  its 
consumers,  and.  while  supplying  some  with  water  under  private 
contracts  at  low  rates,  attack  the  validity  of  maximum  rates  fixed 
by  the  comity  commissioners  under  the  statute,  on  the  ground 
that,  as  applied  to  its  other  consumers,  they  will  not  yield  a  rea- 
sonable return  on  its  investment,  but  will  amount  to  a  taking  of 
its  property  without  compensation.  In  detenniuing  the  reason- 
ableness of  such  rates,  they  must  be  considered  as  applicable  to 
all  its  consumers.*'  A  person  having  a  contract  with  an  irrigation 
company,  binding  it  to  furnish  water  for  the  irrigation  of  his 
lands,  has  an  adequate  remedy  at  law  for  the  company's  refusal 
to  comply  with  the  contract,  though  it  be  conceded  that  the  com- 
pany is  a  common  carrier  of  water,  and  mandamus  does  not  lie  to 
compel  it  to  comply  with  the  contract,  under  a  statute  providing 
that  tlie  writ  of  mandate  will  issue  where  there  is  not  an  adequate 
remedy  at  law.'^^ 

§  48.  Transfer  companies. 

Transfer  companies  engaged  in  the  business  of  transferring  bag- 
gage or  freight  to  and  from  railroad  or  steamship  depots,  or  be- 
tween different  parts  of  towns  and  cities,  are  common  carriers, 
and  responsible  for  the  safe  keeping  and  delivery  of  such  baggage 
and  freight. ^^  A  transfer  company  transferring  freight  from  one 
connecting  line  to  another,  or  from  the  depot  of  the  last  of  several 
connecting  carriers  to  the  consignee,  is  not  "  a  connecting  carrier,'' 
but  merely  the  agent  of  one  of  the  connecting  lines,  or  of  the 
consignee.^     New  York  Laws,  1907,  c.  429,  §  38,  relating  to  the 

31.  Boise  City  Irrig.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  notice,  the  onus  of  proving  the  quali- 
Clark,  131  Fed.  415.  fication  being  on  the  party  setting  it 

31a.  State  v.  Washington  Irr.  Co.,  up.     Proof  of  general  notice  of  limi- 

41  Wash.  283,  83  Pac.  308,  111  Am.  tation   of   liability   must  be  such   as 

St.  Pv.ep.  1019.  amounts   to   actual    notice.     Emblaz- 

32.  DaPonte  v.  New  Orleans  Trans-  oning  the  general  object  on  a  check, 
fer  Co.,  42  La.  Ann.  696,  7  So.  608;  ticket,  or  notice,  in  large  letters,  but 
Richards  v.  Westcott,  2  Bosw.  (N.  stating  the  restrictions  in  small 
Y.)  589;  Verner  v.  Sweitzer,  32  Pa.  ones,  is  insuflScient.  But  the  effect 
St.  208.  The  liability  as  a  common  of  such  notice  is  no  more  than  to 
carrier  may  be  implied  from  the  cus-  render  the  bailees  private  carriers 
tr>m  of  the  carrier,  but  may  be  quali-  for  hire.  Verner  v.  Sweitzer,  supra. 
fied   by   express   oontra«ct   or   general  33.   Nanson  v.   Jacob,   12  Mo.   App. 


COMMON    CARRIERS.  113 

liability  of  common  carriers  for  the  loss  of  baggage,  applies  only 
to  the  liability  of  a  carrier  for  belongings,  which  are  commonly 
known  as  '^  baggage  "  or  "  luggage,"  of  a  person  to  whom  the 
carrier  has  furnished  a  ticket  as  an  undertaking  that  it  will  carry 
both  that  person  as  its  passenger  and  also  a  certain  amount  of  the 
passenger^s  baggage,  and  does  not  apply  to  a  transfer  company, 
undertaking  to  transport  a  trunk  from  a  train  to  the  passenger's 
address.^^ 

§  49.  Owners  of  grain  elevators. 

The  business  of  elevating  grain  is  a  business  charged  with  a 
public  interest,  and  those  who  carry  it  on  occupy  a  relation  to  the 
community  analogous  to  that  of  common  carriers,  and  may  be  con- 
trolled by  public  legislation  for  the  common  good.^*  The  owners 
of  grain  elevators  are  subject  to  statutory  regulation  requiring 
them  to  receive  and  store  grain  offered  at  lawful  prices  when  there 
is  room  for  it  although  the  main  purpose  in  maintaining  the  ele- 
vator is  to  store  their  own  grain  in  carrying  on  their  business  of 
buying  and  shipping  grain,  which  may  be  obstructed  by  accepting 
the  grain  offered  for  storage.^^  Statutes  regulating  the  fees  for 
elevating,  storing,  and  discharging  grain  by  elevators  and  estab- 
lishing the  maximum  charges  which  may  be  imposed,  are  not  in- 
consistent with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  either  as 
infringing  the  power  to  regulate  commerce,  or  as  involving  a 
preference  of  the  ports  of  one  State  over  another,  or  as  depriving 
any  person  of  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws,  or  of  his  property 
without  due  process  of  law.^® 

125,  affd.  93  Mo.  331,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  Ct.  Rep.  468,  5  Am.  Ry.  &  Corp.  Rep. 

R.  Gas.  553.  610. 

33a.    Meister    v.    Woolverton,     121  35.  Brass  v.  North  Dakota,  153  U. 

N.  Y.  Supp.   606,   67  Misc.  Rep.    (N.  S.   391,   38   L.   Ed.   757,   14   Sup.   Ct, 

Y.)    167;   Morgan  v.  Woolverton,  120  Rep.  857. 

N.  Y.  Supp.  1008.     See  Richardson  v.  36.  Budd    v.     New    York,     supra; 

Woolverton,  117  N.  Y.  Supp.  908.  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113;   Chi- 

See   also    §    28,   supra,     and     oases  cago,   etc.,  R.   Ce.  v.  Iowa,   94  U.   S. 

there  cited.  155. 

34.  Budd  V.  New  York,  143  U.  S.  The  legislature  can  fix  a  maximum 

617,  36  L.  Ed.  247,  45  Alb.  J.  L.  354,  beyond    which    any    charge    would    be 

36  Am.  &  Encr.  Corp.  Cas.  31,  12  Sup.  unreasonable  for  the  use  of  property 


114  i'iil^   1-A\V   Oi-'  LAKKIKKS. 

§  50.  Storage  and  transfer  companies. — Public  moving  van  com- 
panies. 
A  slorai::o  company,  employed  to  move  household  eflFects  from 
one  house  in  a  city  to  another,  is  not  a  common  carrier  having  a 
lien  on  tlie  property  moved  entitling  it  to  retain  it  until  its  charges 
are  paid.^'  It  is  liable  only  as  a  bailee  for  hire  for  the  negligence 
of  its  servants.^  A  transfer  and  storage  company  engaged  in  a 
business  of  warehousing  goods  and  forwarding  them  for  a  com- 
pensation in  car  load  lots  is  a  common  carrier,  so  as  to  make  it 
liable  as  such  for  the  destruction  of  the  goods  while  in  its  waro- 
house.^  Public  moving  van  companies,  draymen,  and  truckmen 
engaged  in  transporting  goods  and  merchandise  are  common  car- 
riers and  subject  to  reasonable  regulation  as  such.*** 

in  which  the  public  has  an  interest,  88.  Jaminet    v.    American    Storage 

but  cannot  compel   the  doing  of  ser-  &  Moving  Co.,  109  Mo.  App.  257,  84 

vices  without  reward.     Budd  v.  New  S.  W.  128. 

York,  143  U.  S.  517,  36  L.  Ed.  247,  39.  Kettenhofen  v.  Globe  Transfer 

45   Alb.   L.   J.    354,    36   Am.   &    Eng.  &    Storage    Co.,    70    Wash.    645,    127 

Corp.  Cas.  31,  12  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  468,  Pac.   295. 

5  Am.  Ry.  &  Corp.  Rep.  610.  40.  Lawson  v.  Connolly,  —  Mich. 

37.  Thompson  v.  New  York  Storage  — ,  141  N.  W.  633. 
Co.,  97  Mo.  App.  135,  70  S.  W.  938. 


CHAPTER    III. 

Carrieks  of  Goods. — Duties  and  Liabilities. 

Bectiox     1.  Carriers  of  goods. 

2.  Duty  of  carrier  to  receive  and  carry. 

3.  Must  haul  cars  and  freight  of  other  carriers. 

4.  May  be  compelled  by  mandamus. 

5.  When  failure  or  refusal  to  carry  is  legally  excusable. 

6.  May  demand  prepayment  of  charges. 

7.  When  earner  may  select  mode  of  transportation. 

8.  Duty  to  furnish  shipper  facilities  for  transportation. 

9.  Failure  or  refusal  to  furnish  facilities  for  transportation. 

10.  Special  contracts  for  means  of  transportation. 

11.  Duty  to  furnish  facilities  declared  by  statute. 

12.  Must  furnish  suitable  and  safe  cars. 

13.  Tender  of  goods  by  shipper. 

14.  Illegal  purpose  of  shipper  as  a  defense. 

15.  Proximate  cause  of  loss  or  injury. 

16.  Discrimination  in  charges  or  facilities. 

17.  The  rule  does  not  require  the  same  rates  and  facilities  for  all. 

18.  The  compensation  of  the  carrier. 

19.  Excessive  charges  and  actions  therefor. 

20.  Injunctions. 

§  1.  Carriers  of  goods. 

Carriers  of  goods  are  common  carriers*  whose  rights,  duties, 
obligations,  and  liabilities  in  the  transportation  of  property  de- 
livered to  them  for  carriage  will  be  the  subject  of  consideration 
in  this  and  the  following  chapters  under  this  general  heading  or 
subdivision.  As  here  used,  the  term,  carriers  of  goods,  includes 
all  common  carriers,  except  carriers  of  passengers  and  carriers  of 
live  stock.  The  rules  and  principles  applicable  to  carriers  of 
goods  and  carriers  of  live  stock  being  practically  the  same,  in  so 
far  as  their  duties  and  liabilities  are  concerned,  except  that  such 
rules  and  principles  are  modified  in  their  application  as  to  car- 
riers of  live  stock  so  as  to  relieve  them  from  liability  for  losses 
resulting  from  the  inherent  nature  of  the  property  carried,  aro 

1.  See   the   title   Common   Carriers. 

(115) 


IIG 


THJi:  LAW  OF  CARIUKIIS. 


treated  without  distinction  in  Uiis  connection.  The  essentials 
wherein  the  ditl'eronce  in  liability  consists  will  be  set  forth  under 
the  heading  or  subdivision,  Carriers  of  Live  Stock.* 


§  2.  Duty  of  carrier  to  receive  and  carry. 

It  is  tlie  coinuion-law  duty  of  a  common  carrier,  on  being  tend- 
ered a  reasonable  compensation,  to  receive  at  reasonable  times  and 
carry  all  goods  offered  to  it  for  transportation,  within  the  line  oi 
its  business  or  of  the  kind  which  it  undertakes  to  transport.^  Hav- 
ing room  or  the  facilities  for  transporting  the  goods,  and  holding 
itself  out  to  the  public  as  ready  and  willing  to  carry  goods  for  all 


2.  See  the  title  Carriers  of  Live 
Stock. 

3.  N.  Y. — Cole  V.  Goodwin,  19 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  351;  Fish  v.  Clark,  2 
Lans.   (N.  Y.)   176. 

V.  flf.— Piatt  V.  Lecocq,  158  Fed. 
733,  85  C.  C.  A.  621,  15  L.  R.  A.  (N. 
S.)  558;  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co. 
V.  Merchants'  Bank,  6  How.  (U.  S.) 
344;  Soutliern  Express  Co.  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Myers  Fed.  Dec. 
§  1511;  Standard  Line  &  Stone  Co. 
V.  Cumberland  Valley  R.  Co.,  15  I.  C. 
C.  Rep.  622,  citing  Moore  on  Carriers, 
l9t  Ed.,  p.  92. 

Aid. — Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v. 
Rice,  169  Ala.  265,  52  So.  918. 

Coi.— Pfister  V.  Central  P.  R.  Co., 
70  Cal.  169,  59  Am.  Rep.  404. 

Conn. — ^lerriam  v.  Hartford,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  20  Conn.  354,  52  Am.  Dec. 
344. 

Co. — Shellnut  v.  Central  of  Ga.  R. 
Co.,  131  Ga.  404,  62  S.  E.  294.  18  L. 
R.  A.  (N.  S.)  494;  Southern  Express 
Co.  V.  R.  M.  Rose  Co.,  124  Ga.  581, 
53  S.  E.  185,  upon  compliance  with 
such  reasonable  regulations  as  it  may 
adopt  for  its  own  safety  and  the  bene- 
fit of  the  public.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Holcombe,  76  Ga.  590. 


Under  Georgia  Civ.  Code,   1896,  § 

2378,  providing  that  a  common  car- 
rier is  bound  to  receive  all  goods  of- 
fered that  he  is  able  and  accus- 
tomed to  carry  on  compliance  with 
such  reasonable  regulations  as  be 
may  adopt  for  his  own  safety  and 
the  benefit  of  the  public,  a  carrier  is 
bound  to  receive  ordinary  merchan- 
dise for  transportation  with  the  fu)l 
measure  of  liability  and  at  reasonable 
rates  on  demand,  and  in  case  of  its 
refusal  so  to  do  the  shipper  has  a 
remedy  in  damages.  Inman  &  Co.  v. 
Seaboard  Air  Line  Ry.  Co.,  159  Fed. 
960. 

Ky. — Bedford-Bowling  Green  Stone 
Co.  v.  Oman,  24  Ky.  Law  Rep.  2274, 
73  S.  W.  1038;  Seasongood  v.  Ten- 
nessee &  0.  Transp.  Co.  (Ky.),  54  S. 
W.  193. 

Ill.—FeoT\a,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  111.  135,  50 
Am.  Rep.  605,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
506;  Galena  R.  Co.  v.  Rae,  18  111. 
488. 

Tnd. — Louisville,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

Flanagan,    113    Ind.    488,    3   Am.    St. 

Rep.  674,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  532. 

Idaho. — Mcintosh   v.   Oregon   R.   & 


C3ARRIEKS— DUTIES   AND   LIABrLITIES. 


117 


persons  indifferently,  the  law  imposes  upon  it  the  duty  of  rec^v- 
ing  and  carrying  them  over  its  established  route,  and  holds  it 
liable,  in  an  action  based  on  its  breach  of  contract,  for  a  refusal 
or  failure  to  receive  and  carry  such  goods ;  and  it  is  not  necessary 
to  allege  or  prove  any  special  contract.*     A  corporation  which 


Nav.  Co.,  17  Idaho,  100,  105  Pac.  66, 
in  the  absence  of  special  contract. 

Iowa. — Cobb  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  38  Iowa,  601. 

Me. — New  England  Express  Co.  v. 
Maine  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  57  Me.  188. 

Mass. — Jordan  v.  Fall  River  R. 
Co.,  5  Cush.   (Mass.)   69. 

Miss. — Southern  Express  Co.  v. 
Moon,  39  Miss.  822. 

H.  J. — Lanning  v.  Sussex  R.  Co.,  1 
N.  J.  L.  J.  21,  a  refusal  to  accept 
goods  tendered  for  shipment,  because 
of  a  personal  dispute  with  the  ship- 
per, renders  the  company  liable; 
Messenger  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  37 
N.  J.  L.  531,  18  Am.  Rep.  754. 

2vr.  C.— Reid  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co., 
153  N.  C.  490,  G9  S.  E.  618;  Porter 
V.  Raleigh  &  G.  R.  Co.  (N.  C),  43 
S.  E.  547;  Harrell  v.  Owens,  1  Dev. 
A  B.  (N.  C.)  273;  Anon.  v.  Jackson, 
1  Hayw.  (N.  C.)   14. 

8.  C. — Avinger  v.  South  Carolina 
R.  Co.,  29  S.  C.  265,  13  Am.  St.  Rep. 
716,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  519. 

Tenn. — East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Nelson,  1  Cold.    (Tenn.)   272. 

iris.— Doty  V.  Strong,  1  Pin. 
(Wis.)    313,  40  Am.  Dec.  773. 

Can. — Greene  v.  St.  John  &  M.  R. 
Co.,  22  N.  B.  252;  Thomas  v.  North 
BtafTordshire  R.  Co.,  3  Ry.  &  C.  T. 
Caa.  1. 

Eng. — Johnson  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  4 
Exch.  367;  0x1  ade  v.  North  Eastern 
R,  Co.,  15  0.  B.  N.  S.  680,  109  E.  C. 
L.  680,  9  Week,  Rep.  272;  Garton  v. 
Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  B.  &  S.  112, 


101  K  C.  L.  112,  7  Jur.  N.  S.  1234, 
9  W.  R.  734;  Jackson  v.  Rogers,  2 
Show.  327;  Crouch  v.  Great  North- 
em  R.  Co.,  11  Exch.  742,  34  Eng.  L. 

6  Eq.  573;  Morton  v.  Tibbett,  15  Q. 
B.  428,  69  E.  C.  L  438,  15  A.  &  E. 
428;  Lane  V.  Cotton,  12  Mod.  473  ^ 
Crouch  V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  C 
B.  255,  78  E.  C.  L.  255,  in  this  re- 
spect there  is  no  difference  between, 
the  liability  of  a  common  carrier' 
whose  business  is  entirely  within  the 
country  and  that  of  one  who  trans- 
ports goods  to  a  point  outside  the 
country. 

Switch  connection. — A  railroad 
company  cannot  discontinue  an  estab- 
lished switch  connection  with  a  coal 
mine,  merely  because  the  cars  of  an- 
other company  may  be  taken  upon  its 
line  over  such  switch,  thereby  endan- 
gering its  property,  and  the  lives  of 
its  passengers  and  employes.  Chi- 
cago &  A.  R.  Co.  V.  Suffern,  27  111. 
App.  404,  affd.  129  111.  274,  21  N.  E. 
824. 

Exemplary  damages  may  be  re- 
covered against  a  railroad  company 
which  refuses  to  carry  goods  through 
ill  will  or  willful  disregard  of  the 
righlj  of  the  shipper.  Avingcr  v. 
South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  29  S.  C,  265, 

7  S.  E.  493,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  716,  35 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas,  519. 

4.  Lamar  v.  New  York  S.  Nav. 
Co.,  16  Ga.  558;  Galena  R.  Co,  v.  Rae, 
18  111.  488.  See  cases  cited  in  pre- 
ceding note  on  main  proposition. 


lis 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


uiidortakos  to  operate  a  railroad  franchiso  assumes  all  the  duties 
which  spring  by  law  from  the  cliaracter  of  its  business  and  from 
customs  incident  to  it,  and  it  tenders  a  continuing  oiler  to  the 
general  public  that  it  will  perform  those  duties  for  the  benefit  of 
each  of  them,  when  demanded,  which  obligation  is  an  enforceable 
contract.^  A  common  carrier  cannot  legally  refuse  to  carry  the 
goods  of  any  person,  or  to  accept  them  for  carriage,  except  for 
just  cause,  nor  can  it  lawfully  discriminate  in  favor  of  any  per- 
son as  to  facilities  or  price  for  transportation.*  Its  duties  in 
these  respects  cannot  be  avoided  by  the  adoption  of  any  rules  or 
regulations;  all  rules  and  regulations  of  the  carrier  must  be  rea- 
sonable and  made  in  good  faith  to  properly  protect  the  interests 
of  the  carrier,  and  unreasonable  regulations  will  be  held  void  and 
will  not  be  enforced^  A  delivery  of  goods  to  a  common  carrier, 
and  acceptance  by  it,  to  be  conveyed,  are  a  sufficient  consideration 
for  tlie  contract  to  safely  convey  them.^     "When  the  contract  for 


Tender  and  refusal  must  be  shown. 
— A  party  seeking  to  cliarge  a  rail- 
road company  with  violation  of  a  con- 
tract to  transport  coal  for  him,  must 
show  a  tender  and  refusal.  North- 
western Fuel  Co.  V.  Burlington,  etc., 
Ry.  Co.,  20  Fed.  712.  Evidence  of 
plaintiff's  purchase  of  the  goods,  and 
the  agreement  of  the  vendor  to  ship 
them  in  a  certain  manner,  is  inadmis- 
sible to  show  delivery  to  defendant. 
New  England  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Starin.  60 
Conn.  369,  22  Atl.  953.  It  is  suffici- 
ent to  show  a  proper  tender.  Central, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Morris,  68  Tex.  49.  See 
also,  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  69 
Ark.  584,  65  S.  W.  99. 

Special  contract  need  not  be 
shown. — Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Nock, 
2  Duv.  (Ky.)  562,  87  Am.  Dec.  510; 
Doty  V.  Strong,  1  Pin.  (Wis.)  313,  40 
Am.  Dec.  773;  Fleming  v.  Mills,  5 
Mich.  420. 

A  receipt  implies  an  agreement  to 
carry. — A  receipt  for  goods  in  the  or- 
dinary form  implies  an  agreement  to 


transport  them  to  their  destination 
if  it  is  on  the  carrier's  line.  Landes 
V.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  50  Mo.  346,  3  Am. 
Ry.  Rep.  288. 

5.  Cumberland  Teleph.  &  Teleg.  Co. 
V.  Morgan's  L.  &  T.  R.  Co.,  51  La. 
Ann.  29,  13  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N. 
S.  71,  24  So.  803;  Standard  Line  & 
Stone  Co.  v.  Cumberland  Valley  R. 
Co.,  15  L  C.  C.  Rep.  620,  citing  Moore 
on  Carriers,  1st  Ed.,  p.  93. 

6.  Great  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Burns, 
60  111.  284,  12  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  309; 
McDuffee  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
52  N.  H.  430,  13  Am.  Rep.  72,  2  Am. 
Ry.  Rep.  261. 

7.  Carton  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 
B.  &  S.  112,  101  E.  C.  L.  112,  30  L. 
J.  Q.  B.  273,  7  Jur.  N.  S.  1234 ;  South- 
ern Express  Co.  v.  Moon,  39  Miss. 
822;  Alsop  v.  Southern  Express  Co., 
104  N.  C.  278;  Three  Hundred,  etc., 
Tons  of  Coal,  14  Blatchf.  (U.  S.) 
453. 

8.  McCauley  v.  Davidson,  10  Minn. 
418. 


CARRIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES. 


119 


the  transportation  of  the  goods  is  silent  as  to  the  time  of  shipment, 
the  law  imports  an  obligation  to  ship  within  a  reasonable  time 
after  the  goods  have  been  delivered  for  that  purpose.*  The  car- 
rier is  liable  as  an  insurer  for  whatever  damages  may  be  the  proxi- 
mate consequence  of  any  unreasonable  delay  in  shipment.^"  The 
wrongful  refusal  or  failure  of  the  carrier  to  transport  the  goods 
must  be  shown  to  have  been  the  proximate  cause  of  the  loss  or 
injury  sustained,  in  order  to  render  the  carrier  liable,  although  it 
need  not  be  shown  to  have  been  the  sole  cause. -^  Recovery  may 
be  had  where  other  causes  contributed  in  producing  the  loss  or 
injury,  if  the  refusal  orfailure  to  transport  was  the  proximate 
cause.^^  The  rule  of  the  common  law  that  a  person  who  holds  him- 
self out  as  a  common  carrier  is  obligated  to  take  employment  at 
the  current  price,  which  is  the  rule  of  the  English  courts,  is  not 
adhered  to  in  the  United  States,  unless  the  carrier  has  a  particular 
route  between  fixed  termini.^^  A  carrier,  not  a  public  institution, 
may  select  the  character  of  goods  it  proposes  to  carry  or  discon- 


9.  Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Clark,  2  Ind. 
App.  146. 

Duty  to  forward  promptly. — Sted- 
man  v.  Western  Transp.  Co.,  48  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  97;  Rankin  v.  Pacific  R.  Co., 
55  Mo.  167;  Clarke  v.  Needles,  25  Pa. 
St.  338;  Moses  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
24  N.  H.  71,  55  Am.  Dec.  222;  Waite 
V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110 
N.  Y.  635,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
676;  Palmer  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
101  Cal.  187;  St.  I^uis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Heath,  41  Ark.  477,  18  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  557;  Thomas  v.  Wabash,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  63  Fed.  Rep.  200;  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Hall,  66  Fed.  Rep.  868, 
32  U.  S.  App.  60;  Gates  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Neb.  379,  61  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  218;  Purcell  v.  Rich- 
mond, etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  N.  C.  414; 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ritchie 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  26  S.  W.  840; 
Berje  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  I-a. 
Ann.  468;  Ix)ui8ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Touart,  97  Ala.  514. 


10.  Lanning  v.  Sussex  R.  Co.,  1  N. 
J.  L,  J.  21. 

11.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mor- 
ton, 61  Ind.  539;  Jones  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Barb  (N.  Y.)  633; 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R,  Co.  v.  Neel,  56 
Ark.  279,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  428; 
Marine,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v,  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  Rep.  643,  43  Am. 
&  Eng.  R,  Cas.  79;  Scott  v,  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Fed.  Rep.  56; 
Thomas  v.  Lancaster  Mills,  19  C.  C. 
A.  88,  71  Fed.  Rep.  481. 

12.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Fadden,  89  Tex.  138,  33  S.  W.  853; 
Hernsheim  v.  Newport  News,  etc., 
Co.  (Ky.),  35  S.  W.  1115;  St.  Clair 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Iowa,  304; 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morton,  61 
Ind.  539;  Ruppel  v.  Allepfhany  Val- 
ley R.  Co.,  167  Pa.  St.  166. 

13.  Gordon  v.  Hutchinson.  1  W.  & 
S.  (Pa.)  285,  37  Am.  Dec.  464;  Pitta- 
burgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Morton,  61  Ind. 
.'■.39,  28  Am.  Rep.  682. 


120  THB  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

tiuuo  to  carrj  a  particular  cln^^s."  A  railway  company  owes  the 
same  duty  to  carry  goods  to  au  industrial  plant  connected  with 
its  lino  by  spur  tracks  that  it  does  to  plants  situated  on  the  main 
liuo.*^  A  railway  company  operating  a  belt  line  cannot  refuse  to 
transport  coal  between  a  mine  and  industrial  plants  on  such  line 
because  it  has  never  hauled  coal  before."  A  carrier  may  refuse 
to  accept  an  interstate  shipment  for  a  point  on  a  connecting  line 
which  has  not  complied  with  the  requirements  of  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Act."  In  the  absence  of  evidence,  the  carriage  of 
money  is  strictly  speaking  not  in  the  line  of  the  duty  of  a  carrier 
holding  himself  out  only  as  a  carrier  of  goods,  wares,  and  mer- 
chandise.^* A  common  carrier  need  not  receive  for  transportation 
goods  from  any  person  other  than  the  owner  or  his  duly  authorized 
agent. ^*  A  carrier,  furnishing  sufficient  facilities  of  its  own  for 
the  receipt  and  delivery  of  freight,  is  under  no  common-law  duty 
to  receive  or  deliver  freight  on  private  spur  tracks.^"  Whether  the 
duty  a  common  carrier  owes  to  the  public  is  materially  and  inju- 
riously affected  by  the  contract  obligation  of  the  corporation  to 
individuals  cannot  be  arbitrarily  determined  by  the  corporation 
for  itself.^    A  railroad  corporation  as  a  common  carrier  is  under 

14.  Ocean  S.  S.  Co.  of  Savannah  No  length  of  time  or  manner  of 
V.  Savannah  Locomotive  Works  &  treatment  or  habit  of  dealing  will 
Supply  Co.,  131  Ga.  831,  63  S.  E.  577,  discharge  a  common  carrier  when  re- 
20  L.  R.  A.   (U.  S.)   «67.  quested   from   the   obligation   to   fur- 

15.  Crescent  Coal  Co.  v.  Louisville  nish  to  the  public  the  service  it  ia 
&  N.  R  Co.,  143  Ky.  73,  135   S.  W.  engaged  in  performing.     Id. 

768.  19.  Drake  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

16.  Crescent  Coal  Co.  v.  Louisville       125   Tenn.   627,   148   S.   W.  214. 

&  N.  R.  Co.,  143  Ky.  73,  135  S.  W.  20.  Gulf  Compress  Co.  v.  Alabama 

768.  G.   S.  R.   Co.,   100  Miss.   582,   56  So. 

17.  Crescent  Brewing  Co.  v.  Oregon      666. 

Short  Line  R.  Co.,  —  Idaho,  — ,  132  Where  a  carrier   received  and  de- 

Pac.  975.  livered  freight  on  private  spur  tracks, 

18.  Chesapeake  4;  0.  Ry.  Co.  v.  generally  under  contracts  between  the 
Hall,  136  Ky.  379,  124  S.  W.  372.  parties,  it  did  not  show  a  custom,  im- 

Where  a  carrier  holds  itself  out  as  posing  on  the  carrier  a  duty  to  de- 
engaged  only  in  the  carriage  of  spe-  liver  or  receive  freight  on  private 
cified  articles,  it  is  under  no  obliga-  spur  tracks,  if  such  a  duty  could  be 
tion  to  carry  other  things.  Louis-  created  by  custom.  Id. 
ville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Higdon,  149  Ky.  21.  Taylor  v.  Florida  East  Coast 
321,   148   S.   W.   26.  "Rv.  Co..  .54  F!a.  636.  45  So.  .574. 


CARRIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES.  "    121 

no  legal  duty  to  haul  show  cars,  that  is,  cars  owned  and  fitt^  up 
by  showmen  and  used  exclusively  by  them  to  house  and  transport 
their  employees  and  show  property  as  a  complete  outfit  from  place 
to  place  over  railroads.^^  There  is  no  common-law  duty  resting 
"Hpon  an  express  company  to  act  as  collection  agent  of  the  shipper 
and  require  payment  of  the  goods  as  a  condition  of  their  delivery ; 
but  such  obligation,  if  assumed,  arises  only  from  an  independent 
contract,  express  or  implied,  which  the  company  is  at  liberty  to 
refuse  to  make  in  any  particular  case,  notwithstanding  any  usage 
or  custom  it  may  have  established  or  followed,  which  cannot  en- 
large its  legal  duty  as  a  carrier.^ 

§  3.  Must  haul  cars  and  freight  of  other  carriers. 

Railroad  companies,  invested  with  important  powers  and  fran- 
chises by  the  State,  become  to  a  certain  extent  public  agents,  and 
in  the  exercise  of  their  calling,  they  are  held  to  strict  perform- 
ance of  the  public  duties  enjoined  upon  them  as  a  consideration 
for  the  rights  and  powers  thus  granted.^  They  are  thus  bound 
to  transport  or  haul  upon  their  roads  the  cars  and  freight  of  any 
other  railroad  company,  when  requested  so  to  do,  and  hold  the 
same  relation  as  a  common  carrier  to  such  cars  and  freight  that 
they  do  to  ordinary  freight  received  by  them  for  transportation; 
and  in  case  of  loss  are  held  to  the  same  measure  and  character  of 
liability  as  would  attach  in  respect  to  any  other  property.^     In 


22.  Cleveland,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v, 
Henry,  170  Ind.  94,  83  N.  E.  710 
revg.  judg.   (Ind.  App.)   80  N.  E.  636 

23.  Danciger  v.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co. 
154  Fed.  379;  Danciger  v.  Pacific  Ex 


Pa.  St.  378;  McDuffee  v.  Portland  & 
R.  R.  Co.,  52  N.  H.  430;  Olcott  v. 
Fond  du  Lac  County,  16  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
078;  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spear- 
man,  12  Iowa,   117;   Bradley  v.  New 


press  Co.,  154  Fed.  379.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Conn.  294 ;  Wor- 

24.  People  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  cester   v.   Western   R.   Corp.,  4  Mete. 

R.  Co.,  28  Hun    (N.  Y.),  543,  3  Civ.  (Mass.)    564;   Wier  v.  St.  Paul,  etc., 

Pro.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)    11,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.   Co.,   18   Minn.   155;    Rogers  Loco- 

R.    Cas.    1;    Messenger    v.    Pennsyl-  motive,  etc..  Works  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  20 

vania  R.  Co.,  37  N.  J.  L.  531,  18  Am.  N.  J.  Eq.  379;  National  Docks  R.  Co. 

Rep.    754;    Railroad    Com'r    v.    Port-  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  32  N.  J.  Eq.  755; 

land,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Me.  269;   State  Peik  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  U.  S. 

V.  Railroad  Co.,  29  Conn.  538;  Com'r  179;  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blake,  94 

V.    Eastern    R.    Co.,    103    Mass.    258;  U.  S.   180. 

Sandford  v.  C^tawifwa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  25.  Mallory    v.    Tioga    R.    Co.,    39 


122 


THE  l^W  OF  CARRIERS. 


same  States,  railroad  companies  are  required  by  statute  to  re- 
ceive aud  haul  the  cars  and  freight  of  other  carriers.^*  Such 
statutes  have  been  lield  to  be  constitutional,"  and  must  be  com- 
plied with,  except  for  just  cause,  as  vi'here  the  cars  are  so  defec- 
tively constnicted  as  to  endanger  the  lives  or  limbs  of  employes.^ 
But  a  railroad  company  is  not  bound  to  transport  freight  in 
foreign  cars,  when  its  own  cars  are  not  in  use  but  are  free  to  be 
employed  in  the  transportation  desired,  or  where  a  transfer  of  the 
freight  will  not  be  injurious  to  it;  and  it  is  no  proof  of  negligence 
to  show  that  such  transfer  of  the  freight  was  made.^'  A  carrier 
is  bound  to  receive  cars  of  other  carriers  for  transportation  over 
its  line  when  requested,  and  occupies  tlie  same  relation  to  such 


Barb.  (N,  Y.)  488;  Peoria,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  HI. 
135,  50  Am.  Rep.  605,  18  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Caa.  506;  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
United  States  Rolling  Stock  Co.,  136 
111.  643,  29  Am.  St.  Rep.  348;  New 
Jersey  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 
27  N.  J.  L.  100;  Vermont,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  14  Allen 
(Mass.),  462,  92  Am.  Dec.  785;  At- 
chison, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Denver,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  110  U.  S.  667,  16  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  57;  Rogers  Locomotive,  etc., 
Works  V.  Erie  R.  Co.,  20  N.  J.  Eq. 
379;  Greene  v.  St.  John,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
22  N.  B.  (Can.)  252;  Beers  v.  Wa- 
bash, etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Fed.  Rep.  244, 
35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  C^.  646;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
34  Fed.  Rep.  481,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  650,  note;  Standard  Lime  & 
Stone  Co.  v.  Cumberland  Valley  R. 
Co.,  15  I.  C.  C.  Rep.  620,  citing  Moore 
on  Carriers,  Ist  Ed.,  p.  95. 

26.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Smithson,  45  Mich.  212,  1  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  101;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Carlton,  60  Tex.  397,  15  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  350. 

27.  Rae  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  14 


Fed.  Rep.  401,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
470. 

28.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carlton, 
60  Tex.  397,  15  Am.  A  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
350. 

Not  entitled  to  extra  hauling 
charge. — A  railroad  company  is  not 
entitled  to  demand  payment  of  a  fur- 
ther charge  for  hauling  the  cars, 
where  they  are  loaded  with  goods  and 
a  charge  is  made  for  the  transporta- 
tion of  the  goods.  Harrison  v.  Mid- 
land R.  Co.,  62  L.  J.  Q.  B.  225,  88  L. 
T.  268,  5  R.  445. 

29.  Oregon  Short  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  61  Fed.  160, 
affg.  51  Fed.  465,  51  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  145,  wherein  it  was  also  held 
that  a  refusal  to  so  transport  freight 
originating  east  of  a  certain  meri- 
dian was  not  an  unreasonable  discri- 
mination against  another  railroad 
company,  or  a  denial  to  it  of  reason- 
able and  proper  facilities  under  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Act,  although  It 
accepts  in  such  cars  freight  originat- 
ing west  of  such  meridian.  McAlis- 
ter  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Mo. 
351,  7  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  373.  See 
also,  Connecting  Carriers,  chap.  20. 


CARRIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES.  123 

cars  as  to  ordinary  freight,  and  is  liaWe  to  the  owner  in  the  same 
manner  as  to  any  other  shipper.^  A  railroad  company  is  liable 
to  a  connecting  carrier  for  the  loss  of  the  latter's  cars  by  fire  while 
in  the  possession  and  control  of  the  former  company,  but  standing 
in  the  yard  of  a  terminal  company,  awaiting  orders  from  con- 
signees for  further  movement,  where  the  contract  with  the  term- 
inal company  is  not  for  the  storage  of  the  cars,  but  merely  for 
terminal  facilities  and  storage.^^  A  railroad  company  must  re- 
ceive and  transport  cars  of  other  companies,  if  not  defective,  or 
from  construction  unreasonably  hazardous.^^ 

§  4.  May  be  compelled  by  mandamus. 

A  railroad  corporation  is  compellable  by  mandamus  to  exercise 
its  duties  as  a  common  carrier  of  freight  and  passengers ;  and  the 
power  so  to  compel  it  rests  equally  firmly  on  the  ground  that  the 
duty  is  a  public  trust  which,  having  been  conferred  by  the  State 
and  accepted  by  the  corporation,  may  be  enforced  for  the  public 
benefit,  and  upon  the  contract  between  the  corporation  and  the 
State,  expressed  in  its  charter  or  implied  by  the  acceptance  of  the 
franchise ;  and  also  upon  the  ground  that  the  common  right  of  all 
people  to  travel  and  carry  upon  every  public  highway  of  the  State 
has  been  changed  by  the  legislature,  for  adequate  reasons,  into 
a  corporate  franchise  to  be  exercised  solely  by  a  corporate  body 
for  the  public  benefit,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  persons,  where- 
by it  has  become  the  duty  of  the  State  to  see  to  it  that  the  fran- 
chise so  put  in  trust  be  faithfully  administered  by  the  trustee.^ 

SO.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R7.  Co.  v.  City  32.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Curtis, 

of   Chicago,    242    111.    178,    89   N.    E.  .51  Neb.  442,  71  N.  W.  42,  66  Am.  St. 

1022.  Rep.  456. 

31.  Bosworth    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.  33.  People  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc., 

Co.,  87  Fed.  72,  30  C.  C.  A.  541.     On  R.  Co.,  28  Hun    (N.  Y.),  543,  3  Civ. 

appeal,  see  Bosworth   v.   Carr,  Rider  Pro.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    11,  9  Am.  &  Eng. 

&  Engler  Co.,  21  Sup.  Ct.  194,  179  U.  R.  Cas.  1,  2  McCarthy   (N.  Y.)    345; 

S.  444,  45  L.  Ed.  208;   Chicago,  etc.,  Abbott  v.  Johnstown,  etc.,  H.  R.  Co., 

R.  Co.  V.  Bosworth,  21   Sup.  Ct.  183,  80  N.  Y.  31,  36  Am.  Rep.  572;  Union 

179  U.  S.  442,  45  L.  Ed.  267;   Hunt-  Pac.   R.   Co.   v.    Hall.    91    U.    S.    343; 

ting    Elevator    Co.    v.    Bosworth,    21  People   v.   Colorado   Cent.   R.   Co.,   43 

Sup.   Ct.   183,   179   U.   S.   415,   45   L.  Fed.  Rep.  638,  45  Am.  &,  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

Ed.  256;    Raw  v.  Bosworth,   21   Sup.  599;    Railroad    Com'rs    v.    Portland, 

Ct.  194.  179  U.  S.  443.  45  L.  Ed.  268.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Me.  269,  18  Am.  Rep. 


124 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


A  mandatory  injunction  will  issue  to  compel  a  railroad  company 
to  perform  its  duty  to  tlio  public  o£  hauling  the  cars  of  another 
company.'*  If  the  remedy  at  law  is  not  so  plain,  adequate,  and 
complete  as  ono  obtainable  in  equity,  in  the  case  of  a  continuing 
trespass,  tlio  party  niay  prevent  the  injury  by  injunction,  rather 
than  wait  until  it  is  done  and  then  look  for  his  damages  in  a 
ccurt  of  law."  Refusal  or  failure  of  a  railroad  company  to  perform 
its  duties  as  a  common  carrier  cannot  be  excused  for  the  reason 
that  a  strike  on  one  road  will  be  extended  to  the  otlior,  if  it  hauls 
the  cars ;  ^  nor  by  the  fact  that  its  skilled  freight-handlers  have 
refused  to  work  for  the  wages  tiieretofore  paid,  when  no  unlawful 
violence  on  their  part  is  shown."  A  proper  and  usual  remedy,  in 
the  case  of  an  individual,  for  a  wrongful  refusal  to  receive  and 
ti-ansport  properety,  is  an  action  at  law  for  damages,  the  measure 
of  which  is  the  difference  between  the  value  thereof  at  the  place 
where  it  was  tendered  to  be  transported,  and  its  value  at  the  place 
of  destination,  less  the  expenses  of  carriage.^^    A  common  carrier 


208;  State  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
29  Conn.  538;  Ew  parte  Atty-Gen., 
17  N.  B.   (Can.)   667. 

Although  it  has  no  schedule  of 
prices  for  certain  goods,  a  railroad 
company  may  be  compelled  to  trans- 
port as  a  common  carrier  such  goods, 
for  instance,  telegraph  poles,  wires, 
and  cross-arms,  leaving  it  free  to 
charge  for  its  services  upon  a  quan- 
tum meruit.  Cumberland  Teleph.  & 
Tcleg.  Co.  V.  Morgan's  L.  &  T.  R.  Co., 
61  La.  Ann.  29,  13  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
C«s.  N.  S.  71,  24  So.  803. 

Although  the  shipper  could  recover 
damages  for  failure  to  receive  and 
ship  the  goods,  the  company  may  be 
compelled  to  transport  the  freight 
offered  for  shipment,  as  the  shipper 
is  entitled  to  the  transportation  of 
his  freight  and  not  the  payment  of 
money,  and  the  latter  would  not  fur- 
nish an  adequate  remedy.     Id. 

34.  Chicago,  ert;c.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Bur- 
lington, etc.,   Ry.   Co.,   34   Fed.  Rep. 


481,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  650; 
Standard  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  Cum- 
berland Valley  R.  Co.,  15  L  C.  C.  Rep. 
620,  citing  Moore  on  Carriers,  Ist 
Ed.,  p.  96. 

35.  Payne  v.  Kansas  &  A.  V.  R. 
Co.  (C.  C.  W.  D.,  Ark.),  46  Fed.  Rep. 
546,  47  Am.  &  Eng.  R,  Cas.  235; 
Rogers  Locomotive,  etc.,  Works  v. 
Erie  R.  Co.,  20  N,  J.  Eq.  379; 
Butchers',  etc.,  Stock-Yards  Co.  v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Fed.  Rep. 
35;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R, 
Cas.  511. 

36.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Bur- 
lington, etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  34  Fed.  Rep. 
481,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Caa.  650. 

37.  People  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  28  Hun  (N.  Y.),  543,  3  Civ. 
Pro,  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  11,  9  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  1,  revg.  63  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
291. 

38.  People  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  22  Hun   (N.  Y.),  533. 


CARRIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES.  126 

may  be  compelled  bj  mandamus  or  other  writ  to  treat  all  shippers 
alike.**  Where  a  railroad  company  undertakes  to  render  as  a  com- 
iDon  carrier  particular  services  to  one  person,  it  cannot  lawfully 
refuse  to  render  similar  services  to  other  persons  under  like  cir- 
cumstances upon  the  payment  of  like  compensation,  and  if  it  does 
so  refuse  it  may  be  compelled  by  mandamus  to  render  to  all,  under 
like  circumstances,  the  same  services,  in  the  same  manner,  and 
for  the  same  compensation.*^  In  mandamus  by  a  coal  miner  to 
compel  a  railroad  company  to  furnish  cars,  which  it  refused  to 
do  unless  he  would  sell  his  coal  to  a  company  controlled  by  the 
president  of  the  railroad  company,  it  is  immaterial  that  other 
shippers  were  refused  cars  for  the  same  reason.*^ 

§  5.  When  failure  or  refusal  to  carry  is  legally  excusable. 

A  common  carrier  of  goods  is  not  under  obligation  to  accept 
and  carry  all  personal  property  that  may  be  offered  to  it.  Its  duty 
is  limited  to  accepting  and  carrying  property  of  such  kinds,  to 
and  from  such  places,^  as  it  publicly  professes  and  undertakes,  or 
is  accustomed,  to  carry,  and  has  the  facilities  for  so  doing.^     If 

39.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Ck).  v.  T>ara-  vice  being  performed  under  a  con- 
bee  Flour  Mills  Co.,  211  U.  S.  612,  29  tract.  State  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line 
&ip.  Ct.  214,  53  L.  Ed.  — ,  affg.  Lara-      R.  Co.,  51  Fla.  543,  41  So.  529. 

bee  Flour  Mills  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  41.    Loraine   v.    Pittsburg,   etc.,    R. 

Ry.  Co.,  74  Kan.  808,  88  Pac.  72.    See  Co.,  205  Pa.  132,  54  Atl.  580,  61  L. 

also,   State   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  R.  A.  502. 

72  Neb.  542,  101  N.  W.  23,  where  the  42.  Pfister  v.  Central   Pac.  R.  Co., 

ervidenoe  was  held  insufficient  to  show  70    Cal.    1G9,    59    Am.    Rep.    404,    27 

any  discrimination  in  furnishing  cars  Am.     &     Eng.    R.    Cas.    246,    holding 

needed   for   this   shipment   of   freight  that  money  to  the  amount  of  $90,000 

so   as   to   authorize    a    writ   of   man-  is   not   "  luggage,"    which   a    railroad 

damns  against  a  carrier.  company   is  compelled  to   carry  with 

40.  State  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  or  for  a  passenger,  and  that  the  corn- 
Co.,  —  Fla.  — ,  40  So.  875.  pany     may     insist    that    the    money 

Where   a   railroad   company   acting  shall  go  via  an  express  company,  for 

aa  a  common  carrier  delivers  between  which,   under  a  special   contract,   the 

stations    on    its    line   the     polps    and  railroad  company  furnishes  facilities. 

wires   of   one   telegraph   eompany,    it  The  court,  in  that  case,  said:     "That 

may   be   compelled   by   mandamus   to  class  of  carriers  known  a.s  '  transfer 

perform    a    similar    service    for    an-  companies,'  engaged  in  receiving  and 

other   telegraph   company,   nor   is   its  transferring   the   baggage   of   passen- 

duty   affeoted   by   reason    of   the   ser-  gers  to  and   from  public  conveyances 


126 


Tin:   l-WV   Ol-   CAURllIUS). 


it  has  novcr  as^uinod  or  ofTorod  to  carry  chattels  of  a  certain  class, 
exct'iu  i4H)u  sinviul  terms  exempting  it  from  all  the  important 
dutii«  and  liabilities  of  a  common  carrier,  it  cannot  be  made 
amenabK>  in  the  characivr  of  a  common  carrier  as  to  such  prop- 
rrtv."  The  carrier  may  determine  by  public  announcement  or 
pnifcssion  the  kind  of  goods  it  will  carry,  the  conveyances  U)  be 
used,  and  the  manner  and  time  for  transportation,  the  conditions 


bv  Und  and  wntor,  arc  under  no  ob- 
ligation to  accept  and  carry  ordinary 
merchandise.  A  parcel  delivery  ex- 
press ct>mpany  need  not  receive  and 
deliver  hny,  lumber,  or  other  articles 
too  bulky,  heavy,  or  otherwise  incon- 
venient to  handle  and  transfer  by  its 
usual  facilities.  In  otlier  words,  the 
duty  of  the  carrier  is  confined,  as  is 
provided  by  our  Code,  to  accepting 
and  carrying  property  of  a  kind  that 
be  undertakes  or  is  accustomed  to 
carry." 

"  A  person  may  profess  to  carry  a 
particular  description  of  goods  only, 
for  instance  cattle  or  dry  goods,  in 
■which  case  he  could  not  be  compelled 
to  carry  any  other  kind  of  goods;  or 
he  may  limit  his  obligation  to  carry- 
ing from  one  place  to  another,  as  from 
Manchester  to  London,  and  then  he 
■would  not  be  bound  to  carry  to  and 
from  intermediate  points.  Still,  un- 
til he  retracts,  every  individual  (pro- 
vided he  tenders  the  money  at  the 
time  and  there  is  room  in  the  convey- 
ance) has  a  right  to  call  upon  him 
to  receive  and  carry  goods  according 
to  his  public  profession."  Johnson  v. 
Midland  R.  Co.,  4  Exch.  367,  6  Railw. 
Pas.  61,  1  Ry.  4;  C.  T.  Gas.  16. 

Carrier  may  restrict  or  limit  its 
traffic. — If  a  railroad  company  does 
not  hold  itself  out  as  a  common  car- 
rier of  coal,  it  is  not  obliged  to  carry 
coal  from  station  to  station  or  for 
coal  merchants,  and  may  restrict   its 


coal  traffic  to  the  carriage  of  coal  for 
collier  owners,  from  the  pit's  mouth 
to  8tation.s  where  such  collier  owners 
have  their  depots.  Oxlade  v.  North 
Eastern  R.  Co.,  1  C.  B.  N.  S.  454,  87 
E.  C.  L.  454,  15  C.  B.  N.  S.  680,  109 
E  C.  L.  680,  9  W.  R.  272,  3  L.  T.  N. 
S.  671.  See  Thomas  v.  North  Staf- 
fordshire R.  Co.,  3  Ry.  &  C.  T.  Cas. 
1,  21  Sol.  Jour.  183. 

A  carrier  holding  itself  out  as  a 
through  carrier  to  the  seaboard  can- 
not excuse  itself  for  failure  to  furnish 
facilities  for  carrying  goods  to  the 
seaboard  by  reason  of  the  fact  that 
its  terminus  is  an  inland  town,  and 
the  fact  that  its  uniform  bill  of  lad- 
ing expressly  limits  its  liability  to 
its  own  line,  where  there  is  nothing 
on  the  bill  of  lading  to  indicate  the 
terminus  of  the  line.  Pittsburgh,  C. 
C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  V.  Wood,  (Ind. 
App.)    84  N.  E.  1009. 

43.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Per- 
kins, 25  Mich.  329,  12  Am.  Rep.  275, 
so  held,  in  a  case  for  a  refusal  to 
carry  live  stock.  See  also,  Michigan 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  McDonough,  21 
Mich.  165.  The  general  rule,  how- 
ever, as  held  elsewhere,  is  that  the 
responsibility  of  a  railroad  company 
which  receives  live  stock  for  trans- 
portation, unless  limited  by  special 
contract,  is  that  of  a  common  carrier. 
Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Nichols,  9  Kan. 
235.  See  also  cases  cited  under  §  3, 
chap.  21. 


CARRIERS— DUTIES    AMD   LIABILITIES.  127 

fixed  being  siicli  as  are  just  and  reasonable,  and  treating  all  alike.^ 
It  may  make  reasonable  rules  and  regulations  for  the  reception, 
carriage,  and  delivery  of  freight,  including  the  classification  and 
suitable  preparation  of  articles  for  shipment.^^  A  common  carrier 
may  make  rules  for  its  conduct,  fixing  the  times,  the  places,  the 
methods,  and  the  forms  in  which  it  will  receive  commodities  it  of- 
fers to  transport,  and  these  rules  are  presumptively  reasonable  and 
just/^  It  may  alter  and  modify  such  rules  from  time  to  time  on 
reasonable  notice  to  the  public.'*^  It  may  legally  refuse  to  receive 
goods,  if  it  does  not  carry  to  the  place  to  which  the  shipper  wishes 
to  ship  the  goods ;  ^*  or,  if  they  are  offered  at  a  time  unreasonably 
long  before  the  accustomed  or  appointed  time  for  departure  of  its 
conveyance."  The  carrier  may  require  that  freight  be  delivered 
to  it  at  a  prescribed  time  prior  to  the  departure  of  a  train,  rea- 
sonably sufficient  to  enable  it  to  make  up  its  train  and  prepare 
the  goods  for  shipment,  and  may  refuse  goods  not  offered  at  a 
reasonable  time  before  the  departure  of  the  train.^**  The  reason- 
ableness of  the  time  within  which  a  carrier  must  receive  moneys 
or  goods  for  transportation  is  measured  primarily  by  its  relation 
to  the  transportation  of  the  property,  to  the  business  of  the  car- 
rier, and  proper  consideration  of  the  business  of  its  customers."^ 

44.  Oxlade  v.  North  Eastern  R.  Co.,  48.  Pitlock  v.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co., 
1  C.  B.  N.  S.  454,  87   E.   C.  L.  454,       109  Mass.  452. 

15  C.  B.  N.  S.  680,  109  E.  C.  L.  680,  But  that  the  point  to  which  freight 

9  W.  R.  272;  Garton  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  is  to   be   consigned   is   not  a   regular 

R.  Co.,  28  L.  J.  C.  P.  158,  5  C.  B.  N.  station,  at  which  an  agent  of  the  car- 

S.  669 ;  Bouker  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  rier  is  kept,  is  not  a  valid  excuse  for 

89  Hun.  (N.  Y.),  202,  35  N.  Y.  Supp.  the    carrier's    refusal   to   receive   the 

23,  25.  freight  for  shipment.     Reid  &  Beam 

45.  Chicago,  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  v.   Southern  Ry.   Co.,   149  N.  C.  423, 
Colby     (Neb.),    96   N.   W.   145;    Na-  63  S.  E.  112. 

tional   Petroleum   Ass'n   v.   Louisville  49.  Pickford  v.  Grand  Junction  R. 

&  N.  R.  Co.,  15  I.  C.  C.  Rep.  476,  cit-  Co.,  12  M.  &  W.  766;  Lane  v.  Cotton, 

ing  >Toore  on  Carriers,  1st  Ed.  1    Ld.    Raym.    652;    Story,    Bailm.    § 

46.  Piatt  V.    Lecocq,   158    Fed.   723,  508. 

85  C.  C.  A.  621,  15  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.)  50.  Palmer  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

658.  revg.  150  Fed.  391.  L.   R.   1   C.   P.   588;    Lane  v.   Cotton, 

47.  United   States  v.   Oregon   R.   &  1  Ld.  Raymm.  652;  Garten  v.  Bristol, 
Nav.  Co.,  159  Fed.  975;   Robinson  v.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  L.  J.  C.  P.  306. 
Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co.,  129  Fed.  753;  51.   Piatt  v.   Lecocq,   158   Fed.   723, 
Harp    V.    Choctaw,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    125  85  C.  C.  A.  621,  15  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.) 
Fed.  445.  558,  revg.  150  Fed.  391. 


12S 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


It  maj  refuse  to  aocy>pt  or  carry  goods  not  offered  at  a  proper 
phioo  or  to  a  proper  person,  such  as  at  its  established  ofiice,  or 
rti^ular  station  or  depot,  or  to  its  appointed  or  authorized  agent." 
jAnay  lawfully  refuse  to  i-oceive  goods  if  tliey  are  improperly  or 
dcfoclivolv  packed,  insuUicieutly  secured  or  addressed,  in  a  dam- 
agt\l  slAte,  or  otherwise  not  properly  prepared  for  shipment,  or  in 
an  unlit  condition  for  carriage,  or  in  a  condition  necessarily  in- 
volving extra  care  and  risk  in  their  shipment."  It  may  lawfully 
refuse  to  receive  or  carry  goods  of  an  explosive  or  dangerous  char- 
acter such  as  dynamite,  uitro-glycerine,  vitriol,  etc;"  or  goods 


The  rules  and  pratic*  of  an  cxpresa 
oompany  to  refuse  to  receive  money 
lor  transportation  from  a  bank,  which 
baa  a  burglar-proof  vault  and  ade- 
quate facilities  in  the  city  where  the 
package«  were  tendered  to  keep  them 
M.fely  over  night,  on  the  day  preced- 
ing the  departure  of  the  only  trains 
which  carried  express  matter  to  tue 
destination  of  the  packages,  and 
which  left  at  various  times  between 
6:29  and  8  o'clock  a.  m.,  are  not  un- 
reasonable or  unlawful.  Piatt  v.  Le- 
cocq,  158  Fed.  723,  85  C.  C.  A.  621, 
15  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.)  558,  revg.  150 
Fed.   391. 

52.  Cronkite  v.  Wells,  32  N.  Y. 
247;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flan- 
agan, 113  Ind.  488,  3  Am.  St.  Rep. 
G74,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  532; 
Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lilly 
(Misa.),  8  So.  644,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  379;  Kellogg  v.  SufTolk,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  100  N.  C-  158,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  529;  Land  v.  Wilmington,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  104  N.  C.  48,  40  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  18;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Flagg,  43  111.  364,  92  Am.  Dec.  133; 
State  V.  New  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 
Conn.  134;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Lee,  69  Ark.  584,  65  S.  W.  99. 

63.  Elgin,  etc,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Bates 
M*cb.  Co.,  98  ni.  App.  311,  afld.  200 


111.  636,  66  N.  E.  326,  93  Am.  St.  Rep. 
218;  Union  Express  Co.  v.  Graham, 
26  Ohio  St.  595;  Fitzgerald  v.  Adams 
Express  Co.,  24  Ind.  447,  87  Am.  Dec. 
341;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Weiss- 
man,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  86;  Hart  v. 
Baxemdale,  16  L.  T.  N.  S.  390,  6 
Exch.  769,  16  Jur.  126;  Munstor  v. 
South  Eastern  R.  Co.,  4  C.  B.  N.  S. 
676,  93  E.  C.  L.  676,  27  L.  J.  C.  P. 
308. 

54.  Nitro-glycerine  Case,  15  WaU. 
(U.  S.)  524;  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Shanly,  107  Mass.  568,  12  Am.  L. 
Reg.  N.  S.  500;  Farrant  v.  Barnes, 
11  C.  B.  N.  S.  553,  103  E.  C.  L.  553; 
Williams  v.  East  India  Co.,  3  East, 
192;  Brass  v.  Maitland,  3  El.  &  Bl. 
471,  88  E.  C.  L.  471.  The  carrier  has 
a  right  of  action  against  a  shipper 
for  any  damage  resulting  from  the 
explosion  of  such  articles  shipped 
without  notice  of  their  character.    Id. 

A  carrier  has  the  right  to  inspect 
profTered  shipments  and  to  refuse 
them  when  not  in  fit  condition  for 
transportation,  and,  where  ordinary 
observation  would  discover  their  un- 
fitness, it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier 
to  refuse  the  shipment  in  order  that 
the  shipper  may  put  it  into  a  fit  con- 
dition   for    transportation.     Atlantic 


CAEEIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES. 


129 


which  the  law  prohibits  it  from  carrying,  such  as  intoxicating 
liquors.^  But  it  cannot  lawfully  refuse  to  transport  liquors  be- 
cause of  the  passage  of  an  invalid  ordinance  prohibiting  the  trans- 
portation and  delivery  of  intoxicating  liquors  within  a  city.^®  It 
has  the  right  to  demand  an  examination  and  to  be  made  acquainted 
with  the  contents  of  packages,  where  there  is  reasonable  ground 
for  believing  that  they  are  of  a  dangerous  character;  but,  in  the 
absence  of  reasonable  grounds  for  suspecting  them  to  be  of  a  dan- 
gerous character,  it  cannot  compel  the  owner  or  person  offering 
them  for  shipment  to  disclose  their  nature."  A  carrier  is  not 
required  to  receive  goods  tendered  for  shipment  which  are  inju- 
rious to  the  public  health,  peace,  or  morals,  or  likely  to  destroy 
the  property  of  others,  or  which  are  in  such  condition  that  they 
cannot  be  safely  transported.^  The  fact  that  its  route  is  exposed 
to  extraordinary  danger  at  the  time  of  shipment  and  the  goods 
would  be  liable  to  exposure  to  the  fury  of  a  mob,  destruction  by 


Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Rice,  169  Ala. 
265,  52  So.  918. 

Where  a  carload  of  staves  was  of- 
fered for  shipment  on  the  car  of  an- 
other railway,  and  the  car  was  in  a 
dangerous  condition,  it  was,  under  the 
rules  of  the  railroad  commission,  the 
duty  of  the  shipper  to  load  such 
staves  on  another  car,  or  of  the  rail- 
road offering  the  car  for  furthtT 
shipment,  and  not  the  duty  of  the 
receiving  carrier,  to  have  the  contents 
of  the  damaged  car  unloaded  and 
loaded  into  a  safe  car.  Central  of 
G*.  Ry.  Co.  V.  Cook  &  Lockett,  4  Ga. 
App.  698,  62  S.  E.  464. 

55.  State  v.  Goss,  59  Vt.  266,  69 
Am.  Rep.  706,  30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
118;  Milwaukee  Malt  Ext.  Co.  v,  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Iowa,  98. 

Shipment  of  deer. — Under  the  New 
York  Forest,  Fish,  and  Game  Law, 
9  8,  as  amended  by  Laws  1906,  p. 
1337,  c.  478,  §  2,  prohibiting  the  ship- 
ment of  deer,  whether  wild  or  domes- 
ticated, a  common  carrier  may  refuse 
fco  ship  the  meat  of  domesticated  deer, 

9 


which  belong  to  plaintiff  and  are  not 
kept  in  close  confinement,  though  the 
deer  was  killed  to  prevent  it  from 
injuring  others  and  to  preserve  the 
herd.  Dietrich  v.  Fargo,  52  Misc. 
Rep.  (N.  Y.)  200,  102  N.  Y.  Supp. 
720. 

56.  Southern  Express  Co.  v.  R.  M. 
Rose  Co.,  124  Ga.  581,  53  S.  E.  185. 

A  State  statute  imposing  a  tax 
upon  persons  carrying  liquor  C.  0.  D. 
has  been  held  sufficient  to  warrant  an 
express  company  in  refusing  to  carry 
liquor  in  that  manner,  since  it  could 
either  pay  the  license  tax  or  refuse 
to  carry  the  liquor  C.  0.  D.  L.  Crad- 
dock  &  Co.  V.  Wells  Fargo  Co.  Ex- 
press, —  Tex,  Civ  App.  — ,  125  S.  W. 
59. 

57.  Niaro-glycerine  Case,  15  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  524;  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Irvine,  84  Va.  553,  85  Va.  217,  37 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  227. 

58.  Coweta  County  v.  Central  of 
Ga.  Ry.  Co.,  4  Ga.  App.  94,  60  8.  E. 
1018. 


130 


i  in;    LAW    (,»F  (.AKKIKKS. 


a  popular  outbreak,  or  capture^  h\  hostile  military  forces,  will 
eutliiMiMitlv  ext'usi'  a  refusal  to  receive  and  curry  goods. "^^  An  im- 
jvndiug  flood  of  such  a  eliaraeter  as  to  properly  fall  wilhiu  the 
detinition  of  an  act  of  God,  aud  which  threatened  with  inundation 
the  carrier's  railroad  tracks,  is  a  sufficient  excuse  to  justify  the 
carrier  in  refusing  to  accept  a  shipuieut  of  freight.'"^  A  road  so 
iindcr  military  control  of  the  government,  transporting  troops  and 
munitions  of  war,  as  not  to  be  in  free  exercise  of  its  franchise, 
is  not  liable  as  a  common  carrier  for  refusing  to  receive  freights 
for  transportation."  But  the  carrier  is  liable  for  delay  in  for- 
warding g(X)ds  accepted  for  shipment,  although  the  road  was  under 
military  control,  the  probability  of  delay  on  account  of  blockades 
on  the  side  tracks  and  other  hindrances  being  known  to  the  officers 
of  the  company  at  the  time  of  accepting  the  goods.^'  While  the 
corporation  might  have  limited  its  liability,  yet  as  it  had  not  done 
so  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  recover.®^  When  the  goods  offered  for 
shipment  are  perishable,  if  the  carrier  has  not  the  means  for  im- 
mediate transportation,  it  may  refuse  to  receive  the  goods;"  but, 
as  to  other  goods,  this  rule  does  not  apply,  and  where  the  carrier 
has  not  the  facilities  for  immediate  transportation,  owing  to  un- 
expected accumulation  of  business  or  otherwise,  it  must  receive 
the  goods  to  be  forwarded  as  soon  as  its  facilities  will  permit; 
and  it  is  excusable  only  for  reasonable  delay  in  transportation.^'' 
The  carrier  may  also  require  prepayment  of  its  freight  charges 
and  may  refuse  to  carry  the  goods  unless  they  are  paid,  when  de- 

59.  Edwards  v.  Sherratt,  1  East,  Phelps,  4  111.  App.  238.  See  also, 
'  '4;  Pearson  v.  Duane,  71  U.  S.  (4  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Homberger, 
Wall.)  605,  18  L.  Ed.  447,  holding  77  111.  457,  where  the  delivery  was 
that  the  master  of  a  vessel  would  be  held  not  to  have  been  completed  so 
justified  in  refusing  passage  to  a  pas-  as  to  make  the  company  liable, 
senger  proceeding  to  a  place  under  a  62.  Illinois  Cent,  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb,  64 
revolutionary   government,   by   which  III.  128. 

he   has    been    sentenced    to   death    in  63.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Schwartz, 

case  of  his  return.     Compare  Illinois  13  111.  App.  490. 

r>nt.  R.  Co.  v.  Schwartz,  13  111.  App.  64.  Tierncy  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc., 

400.  R.   Co.,   76   N.   Y.   305,   affg.   10   Hun 

60.  Gray  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  119  Mo.  (N.  Y.),  569,  67  Barb.    (N.  Y.)    538. 
App.  144.  95  S.  W.  983.  65.  See   Duty    to   furnish    facilities 

61.  Phelps  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,      for  transportation,  §  8,  post. 
94   111.   543;    Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.  v. 


CAKRIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES. 


131 


manded.**  The  rule,  however,  may  be  otherwise,  where  a  different 
usage,  long  established,  has  prevailed."  Generally,  it  may  be  said 
that  if  a  common  carrier  has  reasonable  grounds  for  not  receiving 
goods  offered  to  it  for  transportation,  it  may  do  so;  but  if  it  once 
receives  them,  it  will  be  considered  as  waiving  its  right  to  refuse 
tiem  and  as  accepting  them  in  the  usual  way,  and  becomes  an 
insurer  and  subject  to  all  the  liabilities  of  a  common  carrier,  in 
the  absence  of  special  limitation  of  its  liability  in  the  contract  of 
carriage." 

§  6.  May  demand  prepayment  of  charges. 

A  carrier  may  require  prepayment  of  freight  charges  from  any 
shipper,  at  its  choice,  and  may  lawfully  refuse  to  receive  freight 
from  a  receiving  carrier  without  such  prepayment,  although  it 
does  not  require  it  from  others ;  but  notice  of  such  requirement 
should  be  given  to  the  shipper  or  receiving;  carrier.^*     Whether  a 


66.  See  May  demand  prepayment  of 
charr^'es,  §  6,  post. 

Tlie  Texas  statute,  requiring  rail- 
road corporations  to  take  and  trans- 
port property  on  the  due  payment  of 
the  legal  freight,  does  not  contem- 
plate prepayment,  and  where  a  draft 
•was  given  the  railroad  for  the  freight, 
on  the  making  out  of  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing, and  was  forwarded  with  the  bill 
of  lading  and  paid  on  presentation, 
it  was  due  payment.  Dorrance  &  Co. 
V.  International  &  G.  N.  R.  Co. 
(Tex.),  125  S.  W.  561. 

67.  See  May  demand  prepayment  of 
charges,  §  6,  post. 

68.  Porcher  v.  North  Eastern  R. 
Co.,  14  Rich.  L.  (S.  C.)  181;  The 
David  &  aaroline,  5  Blatchf.  (U.  S.) 
206;  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Swift, 
79  U.  S.  (12  Wall.)  262,  20  L.  Ed. 
423;  PJckford  v.  Grand  Junction  R. 
Co.,  12  M.  &  W.  766;  Groat  Northern 
R.  Co.  V.  Shepherd,  8  Exch.  30,  14 
Eng.  L.  4  Eq.  367. 

A  railroad  company  cannot  refuse 
to  accept  and  transport  coal  tendered 


by  a  shipper,  because  it  is  inferior  in 
quality  to  other  coal  also  produced  on 
its  line,  and  that  the  marketing  of 
such  coal  will  injuriously  affect  the 
sale  and  consequently  the  shipment 
of  the  superior  quality.  Olanta  Coal 
Min.  Co.  V.  Beech  Creek  R.  Co.,  144 
Fed.  150. 

A  carrier  held  liable  for  refusal  to 
accept  for  transportation  cordwood 
which  a  shipper  had  offered  to  stack 
at  a  point  along  its  track  where  it 
had  been  accustommed  to  receive  sim- 
ilar shipments.  Ethridge  v.  Central 
of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.,  136  Ga.  677,  71  S.  E. 
1063. 

69.  Lehigh  Valley  Transp,  Co.  v. 
Post  Sugar  Co.,  128  111.  App.  600, 
affd.  228  111.  121,  81  N.  E.  819;  Illi- 
nois Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Frankenberg,  54 
111.  88,  5  Am.  Rep.  92;  Randall  v. 
Richmond  &  D.  R.  Co.,  108  N.  C.  612, 
13  S.  E.  137,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
75;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Weiss- 
man,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  86;  Fitch  v. 
Newberry,  1  Doug.   (Mich.)   1,  40  Am. 


r6'2 


TUE  LAW  OF  CAIUUERS. 


railroad  company  can  excuse  a  refusal  to  accept  and  carry  freiglit 
on  the  ground  that  Uie  cJiar<:;os  were  not  prepaid  may  depend  upon 
its  custom  us  to  ci'llootiiig  charges,  whicli  is  ordinarily  a  question 
for  tho  jury."  Where  a  carrier,  in  an  action  against  it  for  failure 
to  carry  goods  delivered  to  it,  claims  that  its  refusal  was  because 
the  freight  had  not  been  paid,  plainlitr  may  show  tho  value  of  the 
goods,  for  tho  purpose  of  showing  that  defendant  had  ample  scour- 
ity,  and  that  there  was  no  reason  for  stopping  them  in  transit."' 
In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  a  failure  or  refusal  to  carry  it 
is  not  necessary  to  allege  that  a  compensation  was  paid,  or  agreed 
to  bo  paid,  for  carrying  the  goods;  '^  an  averment  that  the  plaintill 
was  ready  and  willing  to  pay  is  sulTicient;"  but  in  New  York  it 
is  held  that  the  complaint  must  state  facts  necessary  to  show  a 
complete  cause  of  action,  or  it  is  demurrable,^*  and  in  Texas  it 
is  held  that  plaintill  need  not  aver  a  tender  of  freight  charges.^" 
In  order  to  maintain  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  refusing  to 
receive  and  carry,  the  plaintiff  must,  however,  prove  a  tender  of 
the  customary  freight  charges,  or  a  readiness  and  willingness  to 
pay  according  to  the  course  and  usage  of  the  company,  whether 
that  required  them  to  be  paid  in  advance  or  not^^  An  excessive 
demand  by  the  carrier  for  freight  charges  relieves  the  consignee 
of  the  necessity  of  tendering  any  sum  for  such  charges  before 
bringing  suit."  A  railroad  employe  does  not  waive  prepayment 
of  freight  charges  before  delivery  of  the  cars  by  responding  "  all 
right "  to  a  statement  by  the  consignee  that  be  would  give  a  dis- 
posal order  for  the  cars  and  would  send  the  amount  of  the  freight 

Dec.  33;   A.  G.  Russell  Co.  v.  Miller  72.  Hall  v.  Cheney,  36  N.  H.  26. 

D8  Miss.  185,  53  So.  495;   Batson  v.  73.  Pickford  v.  Grand  Junction  R. 

Donovan,  4  B.  &  Aid.  28,  6  E.  C.  L.  Co.,   8   M.   &   W.   372,   5  Jur.   731,   2 

376;  B-irnes  v.  Mrashall,  18  Q.  B.  785,  Ry.  Cas.  592. 

83  E.  C.  L.  785;   Wyld  v.  Pickford,  8  74.    Bristol   v.   Rensselaer,    etc.,   R. 

M.  A  W.  443;  Bastard  v.  Bastard,  2  Co.,  9  Barb.   (N.  Y.)   158. 

A    W.    443;    Bastard    v.    Bastard,    2  75.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris, 

Show.  81.  68  Tex.  49,  28  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  50. 

70.  Reed   v.    Philadelphia,   etc.,    R.  76.  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co,  v.  Rae,  18 
Co..  3   HouBt.    (Del.)    176.  El.   488,   68   Am.   Dec.   574;    Pickford 

71.  Leach  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,      v.  Grand  Junction  R.  Co.,  supra. 

89  Hun   (N.  Y.),  377,  36  N.  Y.  Supp.  77.  Moran  Bros.  Co.  v.  Northern  P. 

305.  R.  Co.,  19  Wash.  266,  53  Pac.  49. 


CARRIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES.  133 

■whenever  he  got  the  expense  notices  and  knew  the  amount^*  Fail- 
ure to  tender  or  pay  freight  charges  where  they  are  not  demanded, 
■will  not  prevent  a  recovery  for  failure  to  provide  a  car  for  ship- 
ment at  the  time  agreed  upon.™  If  a  railroad  company  receives 
freight  and  undertakes  to  carry  it  without  exacting  prepayment 
of  the  freight  charges,  it  is  bound  to  exercise  the  same  care  in 
carrying,  storing,  and  holding  it  as  if  the  charges  had  been  pre- 
paid/*' And  where  a  carrier  has  informed  the  owner  that  goods 
would  be  held  until  the  freight  charges  are  prepaid,  but  afterwards 
ships  the  goods  without  prepayment,  and  without  notice  to  the 
owner,  it  is  liable  for  any  loss  that  may  occur  by  reason  of  its 
manner  of  shipping.^^  If  a  carrier  does  not  demand  prepayment, 
it  cannot  sue  for  the  freight  charges  until  delivery  of  or  an  offer 
to  deliver  the  goods.^  The  right  of  a  common  carrier  to  prepay- 
ment of  its  charges  is  waived  if  it  accepts  the  goods  for  transpor- 
tation without  exacting  such  payment  in  advance,  and  liability 
attaches  as  though  the  freight  were  actually  prepaid.^^  The 
carrier  need  not  be  paid  in  advance,  unless  he  specially  demands 
it.'* 

§  7.  When  carrier  may  select  mode  of  transportation. 

'A  common  carrier  who  takes  an  article  for  transportation  is 
liable  for  the  exercise  of  its  judgment  as  to  the  manner  of  carry- 
ing it,  and  cannot  rely,  in  avoidance  of  its  liability,  on  misrepre- 
sentations, unless  they  relate  to  matters  not  apparent  to  observa- 
tion.*^ A  railroad  company  may  carry  on  a  platform  car  a  box 
so  large  that  it  cannot  be  got  into  a  box  car,  due  precaution  being 
taken  to  keep  it  from  getting  wet**    In  the  absence  of  an  express 

78.  McEachran  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  83.  Gratiot  Street  Warehouse  Co. 
Co.,  115  Mich.  318,  73  N.  W.  231,  4  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  124  Mo. 
Det.   L.  N.  879.  App.  545,  102  S.  W.  11. 

79.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peri-  84.  Wilson  v.  Grand  Trunk  Ry.,  55 
Bhow,  61  111.  App.  179.  Me.  60,  96  Am.  Dec.  435. 

80.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flan-  85.  New  Jersey  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsyl- 
naffan,  23  111.  App.  489.  vania  R.  Co.,  27  N.  J.  L.   (3  Dutch.) 

81.  Campion   v.   Canadian   Pac.   R.  100. 

Co.,  43  Fed.  Rep.  775.  86.  Burwell  v.  Ralciph,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

82.  Barnes  v.  Marshall,  18  Q.  B.  94  N.  C.  451,  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
785,  83  E.  C.  L.   785,  21  L.  J.  Q.  B.       410. 

888. 


loi 


TIIK   LAW  OF  CAKRIKIIS. 


contr:u't.  it  is  tlio  duty  of  tlio  carrier  to  transport  goods  received 
for  transportation  hy\hc  usual  or  customary  route;  and  for  any 
loss  caused  l.y  a  departure  from  such  route,  it  is  liable."  When 
there  are  two  cu.stomar}'  or  usual  routes,  as,  for  example,  one  an 
iiuside  or  canal  route,  the  other  an  outside  or  ocean  route,  the  car- 
rier nuiv  choose  the  route,  without  incurring  increased  liability.** 
But  the'  carrier  is  liable  for  a  loss  of  goods  proved  to  have  been 
(.^.vasioned  by  a  want  of  due  care,  or  by  disobedience  to  instruc- 
tions, notwithstanding  exceptions  in  the  bill  of  lading  or  receipt.*' 
Where  the  contract  gives  the  carrier  an  option  between  two  modes 
of  transportation,  the  option  must  be  exercised  with  a  view  to  the 
owner's  interest.*''  Ordinarily  the  contract  for  transportation  is 
presumed  to  be  by  the  carrier's  usual  or  customary  route.'^ 

§  8.  Duty  to  furnish  shipper  facilities  for  transportation. 

The  rule  of  the  common  law  was  that  a  carrier,  having  the 
room  and  means  of  carrying  the  goods,  in  the  absence  of  special 
contract,  was  obliged  to  receive  them,  and  not  otherwise;   and, 


87.  Merchants'  Despatch  Transp. 
Co.  V.  Kahn,  76  111.  520,  where  the 
company  was  held  liable  for  the  loss 
of  goods  by  fire  while  being  trans- 
ported by  another  route  than  the 
most  usual  and  direct  one;  Express 
Co.  V.  Kountze,  8  Wall.  (U.  S.)  342, 
where  the  company  selected  the  most 
hazardous  route  of  two;  Crosby  v. 
Fitch,  12  Conn.  410;  Smith  v.  Whit- 
man, 13  Mo.  352;  Powers  v.  Daven- 
port, 7  Blackf.  (Ind.)  497;  Hand  v. 
Bayncs,  4  Whart.  (Pa.)  204;  Davis 
V.  Garrrtt.  6  Bin?.  71  fi. 

Not  bound  to  send  goods  on  because 
of  temporarily  obstructed  route. — A 
farrier  whose  established  route  was 
by  rail  to  Philadelphia  and  by  water 
to  Boston,  was  held  not  bound  to  send 
goods  on  by  rail  from  Philadelphia 
when  there  was  an  obstruction  in  the 
water  communication  temporarily. 
Empire   Transportation    Co.    v.    Wal- 


lace, 68  Pa.  St.  302,  8  Am.  Rep.  178, 
1  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  443. 

In  order  to  constitute  constructive 
delivery  of  goods  sold,  they  must  be 
forwarded  through  the  usual  chan- 
nels, and  channels  supposed  to  be  in 
contemplation  of  the  purchaser.  Com- 
stock  V.  Affoelter,  50  Mo.  411. 

88.  White  v.  Ash  ton,  51  N.  Y.  280; 
Hinckley  v.  New  York  Cent,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  56  N.  Y.  429;  Simkins  v.  Steam- 
boat Co.,  11  Cush.   (Mass.)    102. 

89.  Express  Co.  v.  Kountze,  8  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  342;  Simon  v.  The  Fung 
Khuey,  21  La.  Ann.  363;  Lamb  v. 
Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Daly  (N.  Y.) 
454. 

90.  Blitz  V.  Union  Steamboat  Co., 
51  Mich.   558. 

91.  Hales  v.  London,  etc.,  R,  Co.,  4 
B.  &  S.  66,  116  E.  C.  L.  66,  11  W. 
R.  856;  Empire  Transp.  Co.  v.  Wal- 
lace, 68  Pa.  St.  302,  8  Am.  Rep.  178. 


CARRIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES.  135 

applying  this  rule,  it  lias  been  held  that  press  of  business  would 
excuse  failure  to  carry  goods  in  ordinary  time,  even  when  such 
press  had  existed  for  a  long  time  and  was  known  by  the  carrier 
when  it  received  the  goods,  even  though  the  carrier  did  not  notify 
the  shipper.^^  But  as  regards  railway  companies  and  similar  com- 
panies, which  perform  under  their  charters  and  franchises  certain 
public  functions,  the  rule  is  qualified,  and  they  are  held  bound  to 
have  all  reasonable  and  necessary  facilities  and  appliances  for 
conducting  and  carrying  on  in  a  prompt,  skillful  and  careful  man- 
ner the  business  in  which  they  are  engaged,  and  for  transporting 
without  unreasonable  delay  the  usual  and  ordinary  quantity  of 
freight  offered  them  for  transportation,  or  which  might  reasonably 
and  ordinarily  be  expected;  and  are  liable  in  damages  for  unrea- 
sonable delay  in  carrying  due  to  a  want  of  such  facilities.^^  This 
rule  has  been  held  to  apply  to  furnishing  refrigerator  cars,  al- 
though the  company  did  not  own  any  such  cars,  but  had  an  ar- 
rangement with  the  owners  of  such  cars  whereby  it  could  secure 
them  for  the  use  of  shippers  when  needed ;  ®*  and,  under  a  statute, 
to  granting  facilities  for  the  erection  of  an  elevator  at  one  of  the 
stations  of  a  railroad  to  persons  engaged  in  the  business  of  receiv- 
ing, handling,  and  shipping  grain  over  the  railroad ;  ^^  and  to  fur- 
nishing facilities  for  loading  and  unloading  live  stock  ;^®  to  pro- 

92.  Lovett  V.  Hobbs,  2  Show.  127;  v.  Cobb,  64  111.  128;  Redman  Rya. 
Riley  v.  Home,  5  Bing.  217;  Johnson  (2nd  ed.),  14;  Wallace  v.  Great 
V.  Midland  R.  Co.,  4  Exch.  367,  6  Ry.  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  W.  R.  464. 
Cas.  61,  18  L.  J.  Exch.  366,  "a  com-  94.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
mon  carrier  is  not  bound  to  supply  Young  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  28  S.  W. 
more  carts  than  he  is  in  the  habit  819;  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v. 
of  supplying  because  more  goods  are  Geraty,  166  Fed.  10,  91  C.  C.  A.  602, 
tendered   than   usual;"   Peet  v.    Chi-  20  L.  R.  A.    (N.  S.)    310. 

cago.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Wis.  594.  95.   State  v.  Missouri   Pac.  R.   Co., 

93.  St.  Louis,  I.  M.  &  S.  Ry.  Co.  v.  29  Neb.  550,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
State,  84  Ark.  150,  104  S.  W.  1106;  261;  State  V.  Republican  Valley  R. 
R.  H.  Oliver  &  Son  v.  Chicago,  R.  I.  Co.,  17  Neb.  647,  52  Am.  Rep.  424, 
&  P.  Ry.  Co.,  89  Ark.  466,  117  S.  W.  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  500.  But 
238;  E.  R.  Darlington  Lumber  Co.  v.  see  State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R,  Co.,  36 
Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  216  Mo.  658,  Minn.  402,  wherein  such  a  statute 
116  S.  W.  530;  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  was  held  unconstitutional. 

V.    Burrows,   33   Mich.   6;    Branch   v.  96.   Stock  Yards  Co.   v.   Louisville, 

Wilmington,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    77    N.    C.  etc.,  R.   Co.,   67   Fed,  Rep,   35,  31  U. 

347;    Chicago,  etc.  R.  Co.  v.  Thrapp,  S.  App.  232. 
6  111.  App.  502;   Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co, 


r^ii 


TUL:  law   UF  CAKRlERb. 


vidlng  additional  trncks  and  warehouses  to  aeoommodate  increased 
liu>ine.<s,*'  and  to  constructing  a  side  track  and  switch  where  nec- 
essary.'"* But  railroad  companies  are  not  bound  to  bo  prepared 
for  unusual  and  extraordinary  contingencies  which  no  ordinary 
prudence  or  foresight  could  reasonably  anticipate,  nor  for  an  un- 
usual inllux  of  business  which  is  not  reasonably  to  be  expected,  nor 
lor  an  accidental  or  extraordinary  increase  in  the  public  demand 
for  transportation  which  occurs  without  the  fault  of  the  company; 
they  are,  however,  bound  to  provide  ample  facilities  for  transpor- 
tion  under  all  ordinary  circumstances  and  conditions,  and  such 
as  are  adequate  to  business  reasonably  to  be  expected.^*    But  it  is 


97.  Cobb  V.  Tllinoia  Cent.  R.  Co., 
38  Iowa,  f>01.  wbcther  the  company 
h.is  done  all  that  is  reasonable  to 
accommodate  its  increased  business, 
by  increasing  the  number  of  its  tracks 
asd  warehouses,  is  a  question  for  the 
jury  in  a  piven  case. 

97a.  State  White  Oak  Ry.  Co.,  65 
W.  Va.  15,  64  S.  E.  630. 

98.  y.  Y.— Strough  v.  N.  Y.  Cent. 
&  H.  R.  R.  Co.,  92  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
5S4,  87  N.  Y.  Supp.  30.  afTd.  181  N. 
Y.  533,  73  N.  E.  1133;  Wibert  v.  New 
York,  ''tc,  R.  Co.,  13  N.  Y.  245,  alTg. 
19  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  36,  29  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  635,  cited  2  Sweeny  (N.  Y.), 
wherein  it  is  held  that  the  rule  is 
true,  notwithstanding  the  general 
railroad  act  of  1850,  c.  140.  §  36,  re- 
quiring such  companies  to  furnish 
sufficient  facilities  for  the  transpor- 
tation of  all  freight  ofTered;  Seoville 
V.  Gnflith,  12  N.  Y.  509;  Blackstock 
V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y. 
50,  1  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  77,  75  Am.  Dec. 
372. 

Ark.—Mhdl&nA  Valley  R.  Co.  ▼. 
Hoffman  Coal  Co.,  91  Ark.  180,  120  S. 
W.  380;  St.  Louis,  I.  M.  &  S.  R.  Co. 
V.  Wynne  Hoop  &,  Cooperage  Co.,  81 
Ark.  373,  99   S.  W.   375. 


Del. —  Truax  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R.  Co..  3  Iloust.   (Del.)  233. 

Oa. — Southern  Ky.  Co.  v.  Atlantsi 
Sand  &  Supply  Co.,  135  Ga.  35,  68  S- 
E.  807. 

7/7._C'o1>b  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co., 
88  111.  394;  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Rae,  18  111.  488,  69  Am.  Dec.  574. 

/»!<£.— Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Racer,  5  Ind.  App.  209. 

i/ic/i.— Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Burrows.  33   Mich.   6. 

Mass. — Thayer  v.  Burchard,  99 
Mass.  508. 

Miss. — Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ragsdale,  46  Miss.  458,  1  Am.  Ry. 
Rep.   407. 

Mo. — Faulkner  v.  South.  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  51  Mo.  311,  3  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  293; 
Dawson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79 
Mo.  296,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  521; 
Ballrntine  v.  Nortli  Missouri  R.  Co., 
40  Mb.  491,  93  Am.  Dec.  315;  Cronan 
V.  St.  Ivouis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.,  149  Mo. 
App.  384,  130  S.  W.  437;  Shoptai'/:rh 
V.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  II.  Co.,  147  Mo. 
App.  8,  126  S.  W.  752. 

8.  C. — Mauldin  v.  Seaboard  Air 
Ldne  Ry.,  73  S.  C.  9,  52  S.  E.  677. 

Tenn. — East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Nelson,  1   Coldw.    (Tenn.)    276. 

Tea. — Houston,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 


CARRIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES.  137 

no  defense  to  an  action  against  a  rail"way  company,  for  its  breach 
of  an  express  contract,  to  furnish  cars  for  transportation  of  cattle 
at  a  given  date,  that  the  shipment  of  cattle  over  its  line  at  the 
agreed  time  was  so  great  that  it  did  not  have  enough  cars  to  enable 
it  to  comply  with  the  contract ;  ^®  and  in  the  absence  of  contract, 
when  the  property  consists  of  live  stock,  which  are  peculiarly 
liable  to  suffer  injury  by  being  delayed,  an  unusual  pressure  of 
business  will  not  excuse  the  carrier  unless  a  very  strong  case  is 
made  out,  it  being  its  duty  to  give  such  property  the  preference 
in  transportation.'^  That  press  of  business  or  other  similar  causes 
prevent  the  carrier  from  furnishing  proper  facilities  is  a  matter 
of  affirmative  defense.^  In  the  absence  of  special  contract  there 
is  no  absolute  duty  resting  upon  a  railroad  carrier  to  deliver  the 
goods  intrusted  to  it  within  what,  under  ordinary  circumstances, 
would  be  a  reasonable  time.  Not  only  storms  and  floods  and  other 
natural  causes  may  excuse  delay,  but  also  the  conduct  of  men  may 
do  so.  An  incendiary  may  bum  down  a  bridge,  a  mob  may  tear 
up  the  tracks,  or  disable  the  rolling  stock,  or  interpose  irresistible 
force  or  overpowering  intimidation,  or  the  unlawful  and  violent 
conduct  of  strikers,  after  they  have  left  the  employ  of  the  com- 
pany, may  cause  delay  in  the  transportation  of  property,  and  in 
such  cases  the  only  duty  resting  upon  the  carrier,  not  otherwise  in 
fault,  is  to  use  reasonable  efforts  and  due  diligence  to  overcome 
the  obstacles  thus  interposed,  and  to  forward  the  goods  1;o  their 
destination.'     So,  when  the  road  is  under  military  control ;  *  or 

Smith,  63  Tex.  322,.  22  Am.  Sc  "Eng.      Cross  v.  McFadden,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
R.  Gas.  421.  461;    International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

U.  8. — Helliwell  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.      Anderson,   3   Tex.   Civ.   App.   8.     See 

Oo.,  10  Biss.   (U.  S.)   170,  7  Fed.  Rep.  Liability  for  delay,  chap.  8,  §  1. 
68;   Bussey  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1.  Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    McAuley 

4  MoCrary  (U.  S.),  405,  13  Fed.  Rep.       (Tex,  Civ.  App.),  26  S.  VV.  475;   In- 

330;  Thomas  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  ternational,     etc.,    R.    Co.     v.     Lewis 
63  Fed.  Rep.  200;  Marine  Ins.  Co.  v.       (Tex.  Civ.  App.)    23  S.  W.  323.     Soe 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41   Fed.  Rep.  Liability       for      delay.        Periphable 

643,  43  Am.  9c  Fnjr.  R.  Cas.  79.  freights,  chap.  8,  §   7. 

Compare  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  2.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wolcott, 

Touart,  97  Ala.  514,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  141  Tnd.  267. 
R.  Cas.  600.  3.  Geismer  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 

99.  Gulf  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  ITndge  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  563,  .15  Am.  Rep.  837, 

(Tex.     Civ.    App.),    30    S.    W.    820;  rovg.    34    Hnn     (N.    Y.),    50;    Txiuis- 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hume,  6  Tex.  Civ.  ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Queen  City  Coal 

App.  6.'-)3.  87  Tex.  211.  27  S.  W.  110;  Co.    (Ky.),  35  S.  W.  026.     See  cases 


lot) 


TUE  LAW  OF  CAUKIKES. 


wboTi  the  carrier  is  without  fault ;^  or  tlicre  is  a  wreck  on  the 
trac-k.^  It  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier,  when  unahle  in  any  case, 
from  any  cause,  to  transport  goods  otTcrod  for  carriage,  to  givo 
notice  to  the  consignor  before  accepting  the  goods,  so  that  the  lat- 
ter may  take  a  ditferent  course  if  he  desire  to;  ^  but  whether  such 
an  obligation  arises,  where  tlie  difficulty  or  obstacle  occurs  on  a 
connecting  line,  instead  of  on  the  carrier's  own  line,  has  been 
questioned.^  If  its  inability  to  transport  goods  is  known  to  the 
carrier  or  its  agents  at  the  time  it  accepts  the  goods,  it  is  liable 
and  is  not  excusable  for  delay,  unless  the  shipper  was  notified  or 
consented  to  the  delay;*  but  the  rule  is  held  otherwise  in  some 
jurisdictions.^''    A  railroad  company  has  no  right  to  discriminate 


cited  Liability  for  delay,  Strikes  by 
employes,  chap.  8,  §  14. 

4.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  McClel- 
lan.  54  111.  58,  5  Am.  Rep.  83;  Illi- 
nois Cent.  R.  Co.  V.  Phelps,  4  111.  App. 
238.  See  also,  Excuses  for  delay 
generally,  chap.  8,  §  10. 

5.  ^richigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Bur- 
rows, 33  Mich.  6;  International,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Hynes.  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  20; 
Taylor  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  L. 
R.  I.  C.  P.  385. 

6.  Newport  News,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Mercor,  96  Ky.  475. 

7.  Guinn  v.  Waba=h.  etc.,  R.  Co., 
20  ^lo.  App.  453 ;  Faulkner  v.  South- 
ern Pac.  R.  Co.,  51  Mo.  311;  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb,  64  111.  140; 
Great  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Burns.  60 
111.  284;  Helliwell  v.  Grand  Trunk 
R.  Co.,  10  Biss.  (U.  S.)  170,  7  Fed. 
Rep.  68;  Bussey  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R. 
Co..   13    Fed.  Rep.  330. 

A  carrier,  on  having  reason  to  an- 
ticipate inability  to  furnish  cars 
after  receipt  of  notice  therefor,  must 
advise  the  shipper  in  order  to  ex- 
cuse itself  from  liability  for  failure 
to  furnish  cars.     Di  Giorgio  Import- 


ing &  Steamship  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co.,  —  Md.  — ,  65  Atl.  425. 

8.  Peet  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 
Wis.  594,  91  Am.  Dec.  446;  McCar- 
thy V.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9 
Mo.  App.  159.  See  also,  cases  cited 
in  note  84  following. 

9.  Dillender  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R. 
Co.,  149  ]\Io.  App.  331,  130  S.  W.  107; 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ander- 
son, 3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  8,  and  other 
cases  cited,  supra.  Tierney  v.  New 
York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y.  305, 
alTg.  10  Hun  (N.  Y.),  569,  67  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  538.  See  also,  Wibert  v. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  N.  Y.  245, 
19  Barb.  (N.  Y.)   36. 

10.  Peet  V.  Chicago,  etc,  R.  Co..  20 
Wis.  594,  91  Am.  Dec.  446,  "if  the 
shipper  has  not  all  the  information 
he  desires  as  to  the  causes  or  circum- 
stances which  will  expedite  or  de'ay 
the  delivery  of  the  gmds,  it  would  b« 
more  reasonable  that  he  should  make 
inquiry  than  to  impose  on  the  com- 
pany or  its  agents  the  duty  of  giving 
unasked  a  statement  of  such  circum- 
stances." Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rae, 
18  111.  488,  68  Am.  Dec.  574;  Thayer 
V.  Burchard,  99  Mass.  508. 


CARRIERS— DUTIES    AND   LIABILITIES. 


139 


and  store  freight  received  for  transportation  from  one  person,  on 
the  ground  that  it  has  not  facilities  to  forward  it,  and  in  the 
meantime  forward  new  and  subsequent  freight  received  from  an- 
other ;^^  nor  to  discriminate  in  favor  of  one  shipper  in  providing 
cars,  where  the  demands  exceed  its  capacity  and  the  anticipated 
calls  upon  it;^  but  it  may  discriminate  in  favor  of  perishable 
goods,  when  there  is  an  unusual  press  of  business."  Where  there 
is  a  general  shortage  of  cars  and  locomotives,  but  the  carrier  has 
exercised  diligence  to  provide  adequate  equipment  for  its  business, 
a  shipper  is  only  entitled  to  a  just  division  of  the  empty  cars  that 
should  have  been  apportioned  to  the  station  from  which  he  ships 
his  goods."  The  obligation  of  a  carrier  to  furnish  cars  may  either 
be  imposed  by  law  or  arise  from  a  special  contract  between  the 
parties,^"  In  the  absence  of  statutory  provision,  a  carrier's  loca- 
tion of  necessary  stations  and  facilities  is  somewhat  discretionary 
with  it." 

A  carrier  is  not  required  to  keep  a  car  equipment  sufficiently 
extensive  for  maximum  freight  output  at  any  time  of  the  year, 
but  only  to  meet  a  demand  so  adjusted  as  to  utilize  the  equipment 
with  regularity  throughout  the  year."  Under  the  common  law,  the 
Kentucky  statute  and  Interstate  Commerce  Act,  §  1,  a  common 
carrier  is  under  the  legal  duty,  subject  to  certain  exceptions,  to 
furnish  to  shippers,  when  seasonably  requested,  sufficient  cars  and 
equipment  to  carry  all  the  freight  offered.^*    The  statute  requiring 

11.  Great  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Burna,  Co.,  102  Mass.  276,  holding  that  the 
60  111.  284;  Truax  v.  Philadelphia,  carrier  is  not  bound  to  give  such  pref- 
etc,  R.  Co.,  3  Houst.  (Del.)  233.  See  erence.  See  also,  Liability  for  dtlay, 
also,  Discrimination  in  charges  or  Perisliahle  freights,  chap.  8,  §  7. 
facilities,  §  16,  post.  Acheson  v.  New  14.  State  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  R. 
York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  N.  Y.  652,  Co.,  83  Neb.  518,  120  N.  W.  165. 
where  the  goods  were  not  sent  forth  15.  Chattanooga  Southern  R.  Co.  v. 
in  their  regular  order  the  question  Thompson,  133  Ga.  127,  65  S.  E.  235. 
was  one  of  fact  for  the  jury.  16.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baugh, 

12.  Strough   V.   New   York   Cent.  &  175  Ind.  419,  94  N.  E.  571. 

H.  R.  R.  Co.,  92  App.  Div.  584,  87  N.  17.  Montana,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Mor- 

Y.  Supp.   30,  afTd.  181  N.  Y.  533.  ley,  198  Fed.  991. 

13.  Ticrney  v.  New  York  Cent.,  18.  Illinois  (  ent.  R.  Co.  v.  River 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y.  305;  P.-et  v.  &  Rail  Coal  k  Coke  Co.,  150  Ky.  4S9, 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Wis.  594.  150  S.  W.  641,  a  railroad  company. 
See  Swetland  v.  Boston  &  .Albany  R.  engag*^  in  the  coal  carrying  trade  U 


240  'i'i^   ^-^^   <^*'  (JLAJtOULfclKb. 

carriers  to  furnish,  without  discrimination  or  delay,  sufficient  fa- 
cilities for  the  carriage  of  freight  does  not  make  the  duty  an  abso- 
lute one,  and  doc\3  not  require  the  carrier  to  provide  in  advance 
for  an  unprecedented  and  unexpected  rush  of  business.^*  If  a 
carrier  agrees  to  have  freight  cars  ready  at  a  particular  time,  it 
is  bound  to  perform  such  agreement  notwithstanding  accident  or 
delay  by  inevitable  necessity.^  A  contract  between  a  railroad 
company  and  a  lumber  company  for  a  construction  of  a  switch 
track  on  the  railroad's  right  of  way  was  held  not  to  give  the  lumber 
company  an  exclusive  privilege  of  the  switch  track;  and  the  car- 
rier may  not  refuse  to  furnish  cars  on  such  track  to  another  ship- 
per." At  common  law  a  common  carrier,  receiving  grain  or  pro- 
duce for  shipment  in  bulk,  is  bound  to  furnish  cars  equipped  with 
grain  doors  or  bulkheads  rendering  the  car  safe  and  suitable  for 
the  purpose  intended.^  A  carrier  must  exercise  reasonable  dili- 
gence to  furnish  cars  adequate  for  the  transportation  of  freight, 
and  not  discriminate  in  favor  of  one  shipper  when  the  demand 
exceeds  the  capacity  of  the  carrier  and  the  anticipated  and  ordi- 
nary calls  on  it.^  If  one  contracted  to  deliver  two  cars  to  another 
at  a  certain  place,  and  did  not  so  deliver  them  by  reason  of  a 
shortage  in  the  cars  at  the  time,  the  fact  of  such  shortage  would 
not  relieve  him  from  performance  of  the  contract,  whether  kuowna 
to  the  other  party  or  not.^''     A  railroad  company  must  furnish 

required   to   have   a  sufficient   supply  208  N.  Y.  312,  101  N.  E.  907,  modify- 

of  cars  to  meet  the  normal   demands  ing    147    App,    Div.    195,    132    N.    Y. 

of    that    trade    during    the    fall    and  Supp.  138. 

winter  months   when  the  normal   de-  23.  Dobbins    v.    Syracuse,    etc.,    R. 

mand  ia  heaviest.  Co.,  141  N.  Y.  Supp.  637. 

19.  Cumbie  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Where  a  shipper  honestly  at- 
Co.,  —  Ark.  — ,  151  S.  W.  240.  tempted  to  procure  cars  for  transpor- 

20.  Dallenbach  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  tation  of  perishable  freight,  and  the 
Co.,  164  111.  App.  310.  carrier    refused    reasonable    demands 

In  the  absence  of  an  agreement  to  for  cars,  and  cars  were  furnished 
provide  cars  at  a  particular  time,  a  competing  shippers,  the  shipper 
carrier  is  only  obligated  to  exercise  could  recover  for  the  refusal  to  fur- 
due  diligence  to  furnish  freight  cars  nish  cars,  and  the  fact  that  he  held 
within  a  reasonable  time.  the    goods    for    speculative    purposes 

21.  Southern    Ry.    Co.    in    Miss.    v.  was  immaterial.     Id. 
Mather-McDowell     Lumber     Co.,     —  24.  Williams  v.  Armour  Car  Lines, 
Miss.  — ,   60   So.  42.  7  Penn.    (Del.)    275,  79  Atl.  919. 

22.  Loomis  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co., 


CARRIERS— DUTIES    AND   LIABELITIES.  ^^.^ 

necessary  cars  to-transport  freight  offered  it ;  but,  when  the  carrier 
has  furnished  itself  with  the  appliances  necessary  for  that  purpose 
in  the  usual  course  of  events,  taking  into  consideration  the  fact 
that  at  certain  seasons  more  cars  are  needed,  it  has  fufilled  its 
duty,  and  will  not  be  required  to  provide  for  such  a  rush  of  grain 
as  may  only  occur  in  any  given  locality  temporarily  or  at  long 
intervals  of  time,^ 

§  9.  Failure  or  refusal  to  furnish  facilities  for  transportation. 

A  common  carrier  is  under  a  legal  duty  to  supply  patrons  with 
cars  to  promptly  move  such  freight  as  may  be  expected,  ac<5ording 
to  the  usual  volume  of  business  offered  for  shipment,  and  if  timely 
demands  are  made  for  cars,  and  the  carrier  fails  to  furnish  them, 
without  lawful  excuse,  it  is  answerable  for  the  proximate  damage 
sustained  by  the  shipper.^  Where  the  usual  course  of  busintssa 
has  been  for  a  railroad  to  furnish  cars  at  a  shiper's  warehouse, 
the  shipper  may  demand  cars  for  its  use,  giving  reasonable  notice 
of  its  requirements,  and  may  recover  in  case  of  a  wrongful  refusal 
or  neglect  to  furnish  the  cars."  Where  a  shipper  demands  cars  at 
its  warehouse  for  the  transportation  of  goods,  the  fact,  partic- 
ularly when  communicated  to  the  carrier,  that  the  goods  to  be 
shipped  are  prepared  for  and  immediately  available  for  shipment 
is  a  sufficient  tender  to  the  carrier.^  The  mere  fact  that  a  com- 
modity intended  to  be  shipped  is  not  on  the  platform  of  the  carrier 
is  not  an  excuse  for  the  carrier's  failure  to  furnish  cars,  when  the 
commodity  is  under  the  control  of  the  shipper,  and  ready  for  ship- 
ment in  the  usual  way.^     Damages  for  breach  of  a  carrier's  ex- 

25.  State   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  26.  Cronan  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R. 

Tl  Neb.  593,  99  N.  W.  309.  Co.,  149  Mo.  App.  384,  130  S.  W.  437. 

During    a    temporary    scarcity    of  27.  Richey   &   Gilbert   v.   Northern 

cars   a   railroad   company   is  entiled  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  110  Minn.  347,   125  N. 

to    consider,    in    apportioning    them  VV.  897. 

among    grain    dealers,    their    relative  28.  Richey   d    Gilbprt   v.    Nnrthern 

volume     of     business;     and,     though  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  110  Minn.  347,   125  N. 

there    may    be    a    difference    in    the  W.  897. 

number   furnished   to   different  grain  29.  St.    Louis    S.    W.    Ry.    Co,    ▼. 

dealers  at  the  same  station,  still,   if  I^eder  Bros.,  87  Ark.  298,  112  S.  W. 

no  discrimination  is  shown,  no  ship-  744. 

per  has  a  right  to  complain,  though  A  complaint   in   an   action   against 
he    may   not   obtain    all    the   cars   he 
deems   necessary.     Id. 


142  '^'^^  i-^^^  ^^^  cAiunKiiS. 

press  contract  to  fiinii«^li  cars  at  a  spocificd  time  arc  recoverable 
in  ail  action  on  the  contract;  but,  in  tlie  abdcnco  of  an  express 
contract,  the  proposing  shipper  has  no  action  save  for  a  breach  of 
tlie  carrier's  general  common  law  duty  to  furnish  cars  within  a 
reasonable  tinu\^''  Where  tlie  capacity  of  a  carrier  is  not  over- 
taxed, a  shipper  demanding  cars  need  not,  in  order  to  recover  for 
failure  to  furnish  cars,  give  notice  to  the  carrier  of  the  danger 
of  the  gix)ds  becoming  injured  uiiloss  shipped  without  delay.^^  In 
an  action  for  tlie  failure  of  a  carrier  to  furnish  cars,  the  fact  that, 
after  the  damages  sued  for  had  accrued,  tlie  shipper  and  the  car- 
rier entered  into  a  contract  for  the  shipment  of  the  freight,  did 
not  atfect  the  shipper's  right  to  recover  the  damages  sustained.^ 
AVhere  there  is  no  sufficient  notice  to  furnish  cars  for  the  trans- 
portation of  perishable  freight,  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  loss  sus- 
tained by  deterioration  of  the  goods  due  to  the  delay  in  transporta- 
tion.^^ In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  breach  of  its  common 
law  duty  to  furnish  cars  to  transport  freight  without  unreason- 
able delay,  a  standing  order  of  the  shipper  for  five  cars  a  day  was 
too  indefinite  to  be  the  basis  of  an  action  for  damages  for  failure 
to  furnish  them."  A  common  carrier  holding  itself  out  to  the  pub- 

a  railroad  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  The   "Reciprocal   Demurrage  Act" 

is  demurrable  where  it  failed  to  show  of  1905  is  applicable  only  where  the 

a  demand  on  a  person  authorized  to  gist  of   plaintiff's  claim   is  based   on 

furnish  cars.     St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  violation  of  the  carrier's  public  duty, 

V.  Moss,  75  Ark.  64,  86  S.  W.  828.  irrespective     of    contract.        Georgia 

30.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Sigma  Coast  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Durrence  & 
Lumber  Co.,  170  Ala.  627,  54  So.  205.  Sands,  6  Ga.  App.  615,  65  S.  E.  583. 

31.  Hoffman  Heading  &  Stave  Co.  Discontinuance  of  switching  prac- 
V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  119  Mo.  App.  tice. — That  a  railroad  compiiny  had 
495,  94  S.  W.  597.  been  accustomed  in  behalf  of  a  firm 

32.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tay-  to  switch  to  its  side  track,  to  be  un- 
lor,  87  Ark.  331,  112  S.  W.  745.  loaded  by  the  consignees,  cars  of  ice 

33.  Di  Giorgio  Importing  &  Steam-  brought  to  destination  by  another 
ship  Co.  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  —  railroad  company,  did  not  make  the 
Md.  — ,  65  Atl.  425.  former  liable  in  damages  for  refusal 

34.  Simmons  v.  Seaboard  Air  Line  to  continue  the  practice,  with  or 
Ry.,  133  Ga.  635,  66  S.  E.  783.  without     notice     that     the     practice 

Petition    in    such    an    action    held  would     be      discontinued,     where      it 

BufBcient    as    against    a    general    de-  did   not   appear   that   because   of   the 

murrer.     Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Moore,  practice,   and   a  belief   that   it   would 

133  Ga.  806,  67  S.  E.  85.  be  continued,  the  firm  did  something 


CARRIERS— DUTlEtS   AND   LlABILlTIEfcs.  14,3 

lie  as  ready  to  do  switching  has  no  right  to  discontinue  switching 
cars,  for  a  shipper  on  the  ground  of  his  refusal  to  pay  bills  for  car 
service,  when  a  detention  for  which  the  charges  were  assessed  was 
occasioned  as  much  by  the  fault  of  the  carrier  as  by  the  fault  of 
the  shipper.^^  A  common  carrier  is  liable  to  a  shipper,  for  the 
failure  to  furnish  cars,  for  such  actual  damages  as  were  sustained 
by  reason  of  any  failure  or  default  on  its  part  to  deliver  the  cars 
as  requested.^^  Under  the  Illinois  Railroad  Act,  §  84,  providing 
that  every  railroad  corporation  in  the  State  shall  furnish  cars  for 
the  transportation  of  such  passengers  and  property  as  shall  within 
a  reasonable  time  previous  thereto  be  ready  or  offered  for  trans- 
portation at  the  several  stations  of  the  railroad,  if  the  merchandise 
t<.»  be  shipped  is  substantially  ready  for  shipment  at  the  time  the 
order  for  cars  is  placed,  the  statute  is  complied  with,  and  a  failure 
to  furnish  the  cars  confers  a  right  of  action  upon  the  shipper." 
In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  after 
demand,  as  required  by  the  Texas  statute,  an  answer  failing  to 
allege  facts  showing  that  the  carrier  had  performed  its  duty  of 
providing  a  sufficient  number  of  cars  to  meet  the  ordinary  needs 
of  its  business,  which  it  could  reasonably  anticipate,  or  that  the 
scarcity  of  cars  and  existing  demands  for  them  were  the  result 
of  circumstances  beyond  its  power  reasonably  to  control  and  pro- 
vide against,  is  demurrable.^*     After  a  railroad  company  has  re- 

by  which  it  sufTered  injury  on  a  dis-  nois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  161  111.  App.  272. 

continuance   of   the   practice   without  As    to    construction    and    eflect    of 

reasonable   notice,   and    that   no   such  former  statutes,  see  Atchison,  etc.,  R. 

notice   was  given.     Western  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  People,  227  111.  270,  81  N.  E. 

Co.  V.  Haig  &  Puryear,  136  Ga.  494,  342,  revg.  judg.  12S  111.  App.  38. 

71  S.  E.  792.  38.  Allen   v.   Texas   &   P.   Ry.   Co., 

35.  Laraboe  Flour  Mills  Co.  v.  100  Tex.  525,  101  S.  W.  792.  r^vg. 
Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  —  Kan  — ,  83  judg.;  Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Allen 
Pac.  72.                '  (Civ.  App.),  98  S.  W.  450. 

36.  Yazoo  &  M.  V.  R.  Co.  v.  Fisher  No  recovery  can  be  hail  under  the 
Bros.,  —  Miss.  — ,  59  So.  877.  petition   of  a   shipper  against  a  car- 

The  fixing  of   delaynge  charges  by  rier  for  delay  in   furnishing  cars  for 

the   Railroad   rommissinn   for  failure  a  shipment  as  ordered,  where  the  car- 

of  a  carrier  to  furnish  cars  does  not  rier  furni.'<hcd  cars  pursuant  to  such 

deprive    the    shipper   of    his    right    to  order,      though      tardily.        Southern 

damages  under  the  common  law.     Id.  Kansas  Ry.  Co.  of  Texas  v.  Cox  (T«x. 

37.  Mulberry  Hill   Cnal   Co.  v.  Tlli-  ^'v.    Anp.).  lO:^  S.  W.   1122. 


244  "^'^^  i^W  OF  CARRIERS. 

fused  to  furnish  transportation  to  tlie  shipper,  the  latter  is  not 
bound  to  prepare  and  olTor  his  freight,  in  order  to  become  en- 
titled to  damages  for  the  refusal.^  A  railroad  company  is  not  bound 
to  keep  suitable  cars  constantly  on  hand  at  all  stations  for  the  use 
of  shippers,  but  is  entitled  to  reasonable  time  in  which  to  furnish 
them  after  rei]uisition  is  made  by  the  shiper.*" 

§  10.  Special  contracts  for  means  of  transportation. 

A  common  carrier  is  bound,  by  reason  of  its  general  relation  to 
the  public,  to  furnish  suitable  cars  on  reasonable  notice  whenever 
it  can  do  so  with  reasonable  diligence,  without  jeopardizing  its 
otlier  business.  And,  when  sued  for  a  failure  to  furnish  cars  on 
request,  on  it  is  the  burden  of  excusing  itself."  But  a  carrier  is 
relieved  from  liability  for  a  failure  to  furnish  cars,  when  it  ha» 
suilicient  cars  to  meet  all  ordinary  demands,  and  an  unusual  de- 
mand has  put  all  its  cars  in  use,  rendering  it  unable  to  furnish 
those  demanded,  and  it  furnishes  them  as  soon  as  it  can  with  due 
regard  to  the  rights  of  other  shippers,  who  had  previously  or  at 
the  same  time  demanded  transportation.''^  Damages  may  be  re- 
covered for  the  breach  of  a  special  verbal  contract  to  furnish  cars 
for  transportation  at  a  specified  time;  *^  and  when  a  carrier  is  in- 
formed of  the  special  circumstances  making  it  advantageous  to 
the  plaintiff  to  get  his  produce  to  market  on  a  certain  day,  and 
agrees  to  furnish  cars  to  be  loaded  in  time  to  be  forwarded  to  such 
market  on  that  day,  which  contract  he  fails  to  perform,  the  plain- 
tiff is  entitled  to  recover  such  special  damages  as  actually  result 
from  the  failure  to  get  the  produce  to  market  on  that  day.** 

39.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Camp-  Importing  &  Steamship  Co.  v.  Penn- 
bell,  91  Tex.  551,  45  S.  W.  2,  43  L.  aylvania  R,  Co.,  —  Md.  — ,  65  Atl. 
R.  A.  235.  and  where  the  shipper  lost      525. 

the  benefit   of   a   sale  by   the   refusal  42.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Racer, 

of    the    company    to    furnish    oars    in  5  Ind.  App.  209,  31  N.  E.  853. 

which  to  ship  the  goods,  it  is  imma-  43.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Graves 

terial     whether     the     company     bad  (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    16    S.    W.    102; 

knowledge  of  the  contract  of  sale.  Cross  v.  Graves,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Cas. 

40.  Huston   V.   Wabash   R.   Co.,   63  §  99. 

Mo.  App.  671,  2  Mo.  App.  Repr.  941.  44.  Hamilton     v.     Western     North 

41.  Ayers  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  Carolina  R.  Co.,  96  N.  C.  398,  30  Am. 
Tl  Wis.  372,  5  Am,  St.  Rep.  226,  35      &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  1. 

Am.  A.  Eng.  R.  Cas.  679;   Di  Giorgio 


CARRIERS— DUTIES    AND   LIABILITIES.  145 

Wliere  there  is  a  special  contract,  the  obligations  of  the  carrier 
are  determined  by  the  provisions  of  the  contract  itself,  and  when 
the  carrier  is  not  required  by  the  contract  or  order  to  furnish  the 
cars  at  any  certain  hour  of  the  day  named,  it  may  furnish  them 
at  any  hour  of  the  day  it  sees  fit/'  A  station  agent  for  a  railroad 
company  has  authority  to  make  a  special  contract  binding  on  the 
company,  to  furnish  cars  at  the  station  for  shipment  on  a  specified 
day.*®  Where  there  is  a  special  contract  and  an  absolute  engage- 
ment to  furnish  cars  or  deliver  goods  at  a  certain  time,  the  car- 
rier is  held  to  a  strict  performance  of  the  contract,  and  unusual 
pressure  of  business,  temporary  obstruction  or  other  causes,  or 
even  unavoidable  accident  or  absolute  impossibility  by  reason  of 
an  act  of  God  or  otherwise,  will  not  be  a  defense  to  an  action  for 
failure  or  breach  of  the  contract,  unless  allowable  expressly  or  by 
implication  from  the  terms  of  the  contract  itself/^  Where  a  rail- 
road company  contracted  to  furnish  a  shipper  a  certain  number  of 
cars  of  a  certain  kind  at  a  specified  time,  but  it  was  understood 
that  such  order  was  merely  an  expression  of  preference,  and  that 
the  shipper  would  accept  any  variety  of  cars  he  could  get,  if  the 
kind  he  ordered  were  not  obtainable,  the  company  was  not  ab- 
solved from  the  duty  to  furnish  cars  at  the  required  time  by  in- 
ability to  obtain  the  precise  kind  ordered.**     A  carrier  is  not  re- 

45.  McGrew  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  47.  DeminjT  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co., 
Co.,  109  Mo.  582;  Morehouse  v.  48  N.  H.  455;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Texas  Trunk  R.  Co.,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Hume  (Tex.),  27  S.  W.  110,  revg.  24 
Cas.  §  266,  also  holding  that  the  S.  W.  915,  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  653; 
date  of  the  contraxit  is  immaterial,  Cross  v.  McFaden,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
and  although  the  declaration  may  al-  461;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCorque- 
lege  a  contract  made  on  a  particular  dale,  71  Tex.  41,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
day,  it  is  error  to  exclude  proof  of  a  Cas.  653;  Jemison  v.  McDaniel,  25 
contract  made  on  a  different  day.  Miss.     83;     Atkin-^on    v.    Ritchie,    10 

46.  Easton  v.  Dudley,  T5  Tex.  236,  East.  530,  Spence  v.  Chodwick,  10  Q. 
45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cafl.  340,  14  S.  W.  B.  517,  59  E.  C.  L.  517,  11  Jur.  H73; 
583;  McCarthy  v.  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.,  Baily  v.  DeCroepigny,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B. 
79  Tex.  33,  15  S.  W.  164;  Missouri  186;  Pollock.  Cont.  366.  See  also 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Graves  (Tex.  Civ.  Gann  v.  Chica<,'0,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Mo. 
App.),  16  S.  W.  102;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  App.  Rep.  1288;  Williams  v.  Armour 
Co.  V.  Hume  (Tex.),  27  S.  W.  110.  Car  Lines,  7  Pi-nn.  (Del.)  275,  79 
revg.  24  S.  W.  915,  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Atl.   919. 

653.     See  also  Authority  of  carrier's  48.    Nicliols    v.    Oregon    Sliort    Lino 

agents,  chap.  11.  R.  Co.   (UUh),  60  Pac.  708. 

10 


14G 


Tin:   LAW   OF  L'AKKlKliS. 


lieved  from  liability  for  breach  of  its  contract  to  furnish  cars, 
though  at  tho  dato  of  and  during  the  time  covered  by  the  contract 
it  did  uoi  have  or  own  any  cars/'     In  order  to  make  a  contract 
binding  on  the  carrier  there  must  be  a  corresponding  obligation 
on  tho  part  of  tho  shipper  to  perform  the  contract  on  his  part,  a 
mutuality  of  agreement,  a  consideration  for  the  carrier's  agree- 
ment in  the  payment  of  money,  or  the  expenditure  of  labor,  or 
tlie  performance  of  some  service,  on  the  faith  of  the  contract.^* 
So,  of  a  contract  or  option  to  transport  goods  within  the  time  and 
quantity  and  to  whatever  place  desired  by  the  shipper,  the  shipper 
having  his  election  not  to  require  the  transportation  of  any,  or  the 
privilege  of  determining  the  placa"     Whether  or  not  a  special 
contract  exists  must  often  be  determined  from  the  circumstances 
of  a  given  case,  and  the  evidence  must  be  sufficient  to  establish 
all  the  essential  elements  of  such  an  agreement.^^    There  is  a  con- 
tract of  carriage,  on  a  sufficient  consideration,  where  defendant 
railroad  company,  to  induce  plaintiff  to  buy  ice,  promised  him  to 
transport  it  from  where  it  was  to  a  certain  point  for  a  certain 
amount  per  ton,  and  on  the  faith  of  that  promise  he  bought  it." 
An  oral  contract  to  provide  transportation  on  a  certain  day  is  not, 
after  breach  and  damages,  abrogated  by  the  terms  of  a  bill  of  lad-  , 
ing  issued  when  the  freight  was  subsequently  shipped,  or  merged 

49.  Baxley  v.  Tallaasee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ing  to  ship  the  goods  at  such  rate. 
(Ala.),  29  So.  451.  Southern  Ry.   Co.  v.  Wilcox,   99  \a. 

50.  Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Dane,  394,  3  Va.   Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  321,   39  S, 
43   N.   Y.    240;    Riggins   v.   Missouri  E.  144. 

River,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    73    Mo.    598,    9  51.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Dane, 

Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas.   242;    Tilley   v.  43  N.  Y.  240;   Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Go 

Cook  County,  103  U.  S.   155;    Louis-  v.  Clossar,  126  Ind.  348,  22  Am.  St, 

ville,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Flanagan,    113  Rep.  593,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  275; 

Ind.  488,  3  Am.  St.  Rep.  674,  32  Am.  White   v.   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    19 

&  Eng.  R.   Cas.   535;    Laboyteaux  v.  Mo.  App.  400. 

Swigart,    103    Ind.    596;    Pittsburgh,  52.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Roberts, 

etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hollowell,  65  Ind.  188;  71  111.  540;  Reed  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 

]VIissouri   Pa«.   R.   Co.   v.   Texas,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   3   Houst.    (Del.)    176;    Truax 

R.  Co.,   31   Fed.  Rep.  864.  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Houst. 

The  mere  promise  by  a  carrier  to  (Del.)    233;    Baker   v.   Kansas   City, 

Bhip  certain  freight  at  a  certain  rate  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Mo.   152,   28  Am.  <& 

does    not    constitute    a    contract    on  Eng.  R.  Cas.  61. 
which  an  action  can  be  based,  unless  53.  Bigelow  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

the  shipper  accepts  the  offer  by  agree-  104  Wis.  109,  80  N.  W.  95. 


CAKRIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES. 


147 


in  a  subsequent  written  contract  of  shipment  duly  performed,  so 
as  to  deprive  the  shipper  of  his  right  to  recover  damages  for  the 
breach.^  The  mere  receipt  of  a  bill  of  lading  doos  not  affect  a 
prior  contract,  under  which  goods  have  been  actually  shipped  and 
are  in  course  of  transit,  without  an  actual  consent  to  the  change.^ 

§  11.  Duty  to  furnish  facilities  declared  by  statute. 

^Vhe^e  a  statute  provides  that  in  case  of  refusal  by  a  common 
carrier  "  to  take  and  transport  any  passenger  or  property,  or  to 
deliver  the  same,  or  either  of  them,  at  the  regular  or  appointed 
time,  such  corporation  shall  pay  to  the  party  aggrieved  all  dam- 
ages which  shall  be  sustained  thereby,  with  costs  of  suit,"  the 
carrier  is  liable  for  receiving  the  goods  of  one  shipper  after  re- 
jecting those  of  a  prior  applicant.  It  is  held  that  such  a  provision 
is  "  merely  declaratory  of  the  common  law ;  "  that,  aside  from  the 
statute,  "  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  provide  all  neces- 
sary facilities  and  means  for  transporting  such  property  as  might 
be  offered,  at  least  to  the  extent  that  would  ordinarily  be  expected 
te  seek  transportation  by  the  particular  line."  ^^  Under  such  a 
statute,  it  is  sufficient  to  allege  the  refusal  to  furnish  cars  for  the 
transportation  whereby  plaintiff  sustained  a  loss,  but  under  a 
statute  imposing  a  penalty  for  a  railway  company's  refusal  to 
transport  and  deliver  freight,  upon  a  written  demand  for  the  cars 
and  the  tendering  of  freight  charges,  a  petition  is  insufficient 
which  does  not  allege  such  facts  bringing  the  case  clearly  within 
the  terms  of  the  statute."    And  an  answer  failing  to  allege  facts 

54.  Hamilton  v.  Western  North  63  Tex.  322,  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
CaroHna  R.  Co.,  96  N.  C.  398,  10  Am.      452. 

&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  1;  McAbsher  v.  Rich-  57.    Galveston,      etc.,     R.      Co.     v. 

mond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  N.  C.  344,  55  Schmidt    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  25  S.  W. 

Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas.   324.      bee   also  452. 

San   Antonio,   etc.,  R.   Co.   v.   Avery,  Payment  or  tender  of  freight  when 

19  Tex.  Civ.  App.  235,  46  S.  W.  897;  goods  are  offered  for  shipment  and 
Kan   Antonio,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Wright,  cars    demanded    is    not    a    condition 

20  Tex.  Civ.  App.  136,  49  S.  W.  147.  precedent  to  recovery  from  a  carrier 

55.  Farmers'  Loan  &  Trust  Co,  v.  for  refusal  to  furnish  cars,  and  for 
Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  (U.  S.  C.  C.  A.  increased  frciglits  demanded  after 
N.  Y.),  120  Fed.  873,  57  C.  C.  A.  533,  such  offer  of  goods,  whore  the  carrfcr 
revg.  112  Fed.  829.  requires    payment    only    before    dcliv- 

56.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  ery   to   the  consignee.     Chicago,   etc., 


14S  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

showing  that  the  carrier  had  performed  its  duty  of  providing  a 
futficient  number  of  cars  to  moot  the  ordinary  needs  of  its  busi- 
ness, which  it  could  reasonably  anticipate,  or  that  the  scarcity  of 
cars  and  the  existing  demands  for  them  wore  tlio  result  of  circum- 
stances beyond  its  power  reasonably  to  control  and  provide  against 
is  demurrable."  Jiut  a  statute,  which  provides  for  treble  damages 
for  the  failure  of  a  railroad  company  to  furnish  cars  for  transpor- 
tation of  such  property  as  shall  within  a  reasonable  time  previous 
thereto  be  ready  or  be  offered  for  transportation,  was  held  not  to 
apply  to  a  failure  to  furnish  cars  at  a  mine  for  coal  to  be  dug  and 
hoisted  after  the  cars  are  furnished."'  A  statute  requiring  every 
railroad  corporation  to  provide  facilities  for  receiving  and  hand- 
ling freight,  under  a  penalty  imposed  for  refusal,  was  held  to 
apply,  where  a  railroad  corporation  required  all  grain  to  be  de- 
livered to  a  particular  warehouseman  to  store  and  handle,  and  re- 
fused to  furnish  cars  at  any  other  warehouse.**'  A  right  of  action 
against  a  carrier  under  a  statute  for  refusal  to  furnish  cars  to  a 
shipper,  constituting  discrimination  in  favor  of  other  shippers, 
being  for  damages  to  property  and  not  to  person,  is  assignable,*' 
Under  the  Wisconsin  statute  relating  to  railroad  companies  as  car- 
riers, requiring  them  to  furnish  suitable  cars,  on  reasonable  notice, 
when  within  their  power,  it  has  been  held  that  the  complaint  must 
aver  reasonable  notice,  and  that  it  was  within  the  power  of  the 
company  at  any  time  to  furnish  suitable  cars.^     Under  the  New 

R.   Co.  V.   Wolcott,   141   Ind.  267,   61  59.   Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People, 

Am.   &   Eng.    R.   Cas.    135,    39   N.   E.  19   111.  App.   141;    People  v,   Illinois, 

451.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  122  111.  506.     See  Atehi- 

58.  Allen   v.   Texas   &   P.   Ry.   Co.,  son,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  People,  227 

100   Tex.    525,    101    S.   W.   792,    revjr.  m.  270,  81  N.  E.  342,  revg.  128  111. 

Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Allen,  98  S.  W.  App.   38,   wherein   the  section  of  the 

450.  Illinois   statute   providing   for   treble 

The  right  to  limit  the  use  of  cars  damages  is  held  to  be  a  p^nal  statute 

to   shipments  inside  the   State   must  and  must  be  strictly  construed, 

be  asserted  at  the  time  the  cars  are  60.  Rhodes  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co. 

furnished  in  order  to  excuse  the  car-  34  Minn.  87,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

rir  for  failing  to  furnish  cars  \vithin  31. 

the  required  time  after  demand  as  re-  61.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wolcott 

quirefl  by  .statute.     Houston  &  T.  C-  141  Ind.  2G7,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Caa. 

R.  Co.  V.  Buchanan,  38  Tex.  Civ.  App.  135,  39  N.  E.  451. 

166,  84  S.  W.  1073.  62.  Richardson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,  61  Wis.  596,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 


CARRIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES.  149 

Hampshire  statute,  providing  that  every  railroad  company  shall 
furnish  to  all  persons  reasonable  and  equal  terms,  facilities  and 
accommodations  for  the  transportation  of  property,  it  has  been 
held  that  it  is  the  duty  of  a  common  carrier  of  milk  to  provide 
reasonable  facilities  for  its  reception  and  delivery  and  care,  in- 
cluding care  during  transportation,  and  where  it  is  more  advan- 
tageous to  producers,  distributors,  and  consumers  to  have  it  trans- 
ported in  special  cars  furnished  with  icing  facilities  than  in  ordi- 
nary cars,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  furnish  such  cars.^     A 
statute  imposing  a  penalty  upon  railroad  companies  for  failure 
to  furnish  freight  cars,  after  demand  therefor  in  writing,  doe^ 
not  abrogate  the  common  law  right  to  recover  from  a  company 
damages  caused  by  its  breach  of  a  verbal  contract  to  furnish  cars." 
A  railroad  company  which  fails  to  furnish  sufficient  accommoda- 
tions, witiiin  a  reasonable  time,  for  the  shipment  of  cattle  offered 
to  it  for  transportation  by  one  who  pays  or  satisfies  the  companj 
for  the  freight,  is  liable  to  the  shipper  for  all  damages  sustained 
thereby,  with  costs  of  suit,  under  a  statute  requiring  such  facilities 
to  be  so  furnished ;  and  the  mere  fact  that  an  unusually  large 
number  of  cattle  are  being  transported  over  the  railroad  at  the 
time  the  cattle  are  offered  for  shipment  does  not,  as  matter  of  law, 
excuse  the  company  for  failure  to  furnish  a  sufficient  number  of 
cars  for  the  shipment  of  those  offered.^     The  English  Railway 

Cas.   530;    Ayres  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  for   cars,   under   a   statute   requiring 

Co.,  71  Wis.  372,  5  Am.  St.  Rep.  226,  the  application  to  be  made  to  the  su- 

35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  679.  perintendent  or  person   in   charge  of 

63.  Baker  v.  Boston  &  M.  R.  Co.,  transportation,  is  sufficient.  Easton 
74  N.  H.  100,  65  Atl.  386.  v.    Dudley,    78    Tex.    239,    45    Am.   & 

64.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Har-  Eng.  R.  Cas.  340;  Austin,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
monson,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App,  Cas.  §  91,  v.  Slator,  7  Tex.  Civ.  App.  344;  Mc- 
16  S.  W.  539;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Carty  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Tex. 
V.  Graves  (Tex.  App.),  16  S.  W.  102;  33,  15  S.  W.  164;  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Cross  V.  Graves,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Co.  v.  Graves  (Tex.  App.),  16  S.  W. 
Cas.  §  99;  Texas  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  102;  Houston  &  T.  C.  R.  Co.  v.  :Mayes 
Nicholson,    61    Tex.    491,    21    Am.    &  (Te.x.  Civ.  App.),  83  S.  W.  53. 

Eng.  R.  Caa.  133;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  65.  Davis  v.  Texas  &  P.  R.  Co..  9t 

V.    Hamm,    2   Tex.   Civ.   App.    Cas.    §  Tex.  505.  10  Am.  &  Eng.   R.  Cns.  N. 

490;     San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.  S.  301,  44  S.  W.  822,  revg.  43  S.  W. 

Bailey,  4  Tex.  GMv.  App.  Cas.  §  67.  1008. 
An  application  to  a  station  agent 


150  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

aiul  Cnnal  Traffic  Act,  wliicli  declares  tlio  duties  and  obligations 
of  all  public  carriers  and  provides  for  the  appointment  of  a  board 
of  commissioners  to  secure  their  enforcement,  requires  all  railway 
and  canal  companies,  according  to  their  respective  powers,  to  af- 
ford all  reasonable  facilities  for  receiving,  forwarding,  and  deliv- 
ering traffic,  and  to  give  no  undue  preferonco  or  advantage  to  or 
in  favor  of  any  person  or  company.  This  statute  has  been  held 
to  give  power  to  compel  a  railroad  company  to  so  use  and  manage 
its  stations  and  works,  and  so  conduct  its  business,  as  to  afford 
accommodations  reasonably  expected  of  it  with  tlie  moans  at  its 
disposal  for  receiving,  forwarding,  and  delivering  traffic,  and  pos- 
sibly even  to  the  extent  of  determining  the  number  of  trains  to 
be  run,  or  the  time  of  departure  or  the  like,  but  not  to  compel  tho 
company  to  execute  new  or  improved  structural  works ;  ^''^  and  fur- 
ther that  in  order  to  induce  the  interference  of  the  court  on  a 
question  of  "  reasonable  facilities  "  it  is  necessary  to  show  a  public 
inconvenience,  and  not  merely  an  individual  grievance."  The 
statute  was  designed  mainly  to  afford  a  remedy  against  undue 
preferences  in  respect  to  traffic  and  was  not  intended  to  apply  to 
the  case  of  a  breach  or  neglect  by  the  company  of  a  public  duty, 
which  was  already  susceptible  of  redress  by  mandamus  or  indict- 
ment, and  hence  does  not  affect  the  common  law  remedies  of 
shippers.^^  It  has  been  held  not  to  apply  to  special  contracts 
entered  into  by  a  railroad  covering  traffic  beyond  the  limits  of  its 
own  line.^ 

§  12.  Must  furnish  suitable  and  safe  cars. 

A  common  carrier  is  bound  to  furnish  shippers  suitable,  safe, 
and  secure  cars  in  which  to  carry  property  delivered  to  it  for 
transportation,  and  it  is  liable  for  any  damages  resulting  from 
its  failure  to  do  so.^°    It  has  been  held  liable,  in  such  cases,  where 

66.  South  Eastern  R.  Co.  v.  Rail-  Co,,  95  E.  C.  L.  707,  6  C.  B.  N.  S. 
way  Com'rs,  5  Q.  B.  Div.  217,  28  W.       707. 

R.  464;   Caterham  R.  Co.  v.  London,  69.  Zunz  v.  South  Eastern  R.  Co., 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  L.  J.  C.  P.  161,  87  E.  L.  R.  4  Q.  B.  539,  10  B.  &  S.  594. 

C.  L.  410.  70.   Terre   Haute,   etc.,   R.     Co.    v. 

67.  Barrett  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Crews,  53  111.  App.  50;  Lyon  v.  Mells, 
Co.,  87  E.  C.  L.  423,  26  L.  J.  C.  P.  83.  5   East.  428;   Shaw  v.  York,  etc.,  r! 

68.  Bennett  v.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   13   Q.  B.  347,  66  E.  C.  L.  347; 


CARRIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES.  151 

cattle  were  injured  from  breaking  out  of  a  door  defectively  fast- 
ened ;  ^^  for  the  death  of  a  horse  caused  by  falling  from  a  car,  one 
of  the  doors  of  which  could  not  be  closed ;  "  where  it  furnished 
an  unsuitable  car  for  the  shipment  of  meal,  although  the  shipper 
examined  the  car  and  failed  to  discover  anything  uncleanly,'^ 
where  a  car  furnished  for  the  shipment  of  cattle  was  infected  with 
germs  of  Texas  fever ;  ''*  for  damages  due  to  defects  in  a  car 
specially  adapted  for  the  preservation  of  perishable  property  which 
it  undertook  to  carry  ;''^  for  grain  injured  by  its  failure  to  pro- 
vide suitable  cars,  though  the  injury  occurred  on  the  road  of  a 
connecting  carrier ;  "'^  for  the  death  of  a  shipper  caused,  while  he 
was  loading  stock,  by  defect  in  a  car  and  its  appliances  for  load- 
ing;" for  the  damages  plaintiffs  were  compelled  to  pay  for  the 
death  of  one  of  their  employes,  killed  through  the  failure  of  de- 
fendant company  to  furnish  a  safe  and  proper  car  for  plaintiff's 
use."^  It  has  been  held  that  a  railway  carrier  is  not,  as  a  matter 
of  law,  bound  to  furnish  refrigerator  cars  to  carry  perishable 
goods,  and  that  whether  it  is  negligence  not  to  do  so  is  a  question 
for  the  jury;  ^®  and  that  a  common  carrier  not  bound  to  ship  fruit 
in  a  special  car,  is  not  chargeable  with  negligence  in  forwarding 
it  in  an  ordinary  car  while  the  temperature  is  so  low  that  the  fruit 
is  frozen.^"  To  the  contrary,  it  has  been  held  that,  where  no 
specific  agreement  is  shown  for  any  specific  class  of  cars,   and 

The  Caledonia,  43  Fed.  Rep.  681,  ex-  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  581,  42  N. 

ceptions   in   a  bill   of   lading   do   not  E.  382. 

affect  the  warranty  of  seaworthiness  76.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Searles, 

at    the    time    of    leaving    port.      See  71  Miss.  74,  16  So.  255. 

alao    cases    cited    in    following    notes  77.   White    v.    Cincinnati,   etc.,   R. 

under    this    section    and    Carriers    of  Co.,   89   Ky.  478,  42  Am.  &   Eng.   R. 

Live  Stock.  C'as.  547. 

71.  Terre     Haute,     etc.,    R.    Co.   v.  78.  Hoosier  Stone  Co.  v.  Louisville, 
Crews,  53  111.  App.  50.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  131  Ind.  575,  55  Am.  & 

72.  Root  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Eng.  R.  Case.  643. 

83   Hun    (N.  Y.),   Ill,   63   N.  Y.  St.  79.   Udell   v.   Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co., 

Rep.  841,  31  N.  Y.  Supp.  357.  13  Mo.  App.  254. 

73.  Hunt  V.  Nutt  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  80.  Tucker  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 
27  S.  W.  1031.  11  I^lisc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)   306,  65  N.  Y. 

74.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hen-  St.  Rep.  124,  32  N.  Y.  Supp.  1,  revg. 
derson,  57  Ark.  402,  21  S.  W.  878.  10  Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    35.  02  N.  Y. 

75.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,      St.  Rep  771.  30  N.  Y.  Supp.  811,  re- 
64  111.  App.  130,  affd.  159  lU.  63,  2      hearing  denied  12  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.) 


152  THE  I^WV  OF  CARRIERS. 

nothing  wns  said  about  Uio  clinracter  of  tlie  cars  to  be  iipcd  in  the 
transportation  of  butter  shipped,  tlio  railroad  company  is  bound 
to  provide  refrigerator  or  other  cars  in  which  ice  can  be  used  to 
protect  the  butter  when  necessary,  although  the  rate  of  charges 
named  was  the  rate  for  common  cars/^  A  common  carrier  which 
accepts  and  uses  cars  selected  by  the  shipper  assumes  all  risks  of 
their  defects,  where  there  is  no  fraud  in  their  selection  f^  and  the 
fact  that  a  person  who  delivered  goods  to  a  railroad  corporation 
for  transportation  accepted  a  defective  car  for  their  conveyance, 
knowing  it  to  be  defective,  does  not  exempt  the  corporation  from 
liability  as  common  carriers,  for  the  destruction  of  the  goods, 
through  the  defect  in  the  car,  while  in  course  of  transportation, 
without  proof  of  a  distinct  agreement  on  his  part  to  assume  the 
risk  arising  from  that  cause.^  A  special  contract  providing  that 
plaintiff  "  shall  accept  the  cars  provided  by  the  company,"  does 
not  exempt  from  liability  for  injuries  to  the  goods  shipped  re- 
sulting from  defective  cars.^^  A  stipulation  in  the  bill  of  lading 
that  the  shipper  accepts  the  cars  as  suitable  and  safe  is  no  defense, 
in  so  far  as  it  operates  to  relieve  the  carrier  from  liability  for 
failure  to  provide  proper  cars  due  to  its  negligence;*®  nor  does 
an  agreement  by  a  shipper  of  live  stock  whereby  he  assumed  all 
risk  of  injury  to  the  animals  "  in  consequence  of  heat  or  suffoca- 
tion or  other  ill  effects  of  being  crowded  in  the  cars,"  relieve  a 
railroad  company  from  liability  for  injury  in  consequence  of  in- 
sufficient ventilation  in  the  car  furnished  and  used.**  A  carrier 
cannot  escape  liability  for  injuries  caused  by  a  defect  in  the  car 
by  carrying  its  freight  in  cars  furnished  or  owned  by  another 

117,  66  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  694,  33  N.  Y.  Eng.  R.  Cas.  445,  44  N.  W.  800,  7  L. 

Supp.  93.     See  also,  Ruppcl  v.  Alle-  R.  A.  280. 

ghany  Valley  R.  Co.,  167  Pa.  166,  36  82.  Chesapeake  &  0.  R.  Co.  v.  Rad- 

W.  N.  C.  210,  31  Atl.  478,  25  Pitts.  bourne,  52  III.  App.  203. 

L.  J.  N.  S.  403;  Spann  v.  Erie  Boat-  83.    Pratt   v.    Ogdensburg,    etc.,    R. 

man's  Transp.  Co.,  11  Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Co.,  102  Mass.  557. 

Y.)    680,   67  N.  Y.   St.  Rep.   354,   33  84.   Wallingford   v.  Columbia,   etc., 

N.  Y.  Supp.  566.  R.  Co.,  2-  S.  C.  258,  2  S.  E.  19. 

81.  Beard  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sile<»- 

79  Iowa,  527,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  man    (Tex.  Civ.  App),  23  S.  W.  298. 

509,  44  N.  W.  803;   Beard  v.  Illinoig  86.  Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

C.   R.   Co.,   79   Iowa,   518,  42   Am.  4  Holland,  68  Miss.  351,  8  So.  516. 


CARRIERS— DUTIES    AND   LIABILITIES.  153 

carrier."  The  carrier  is,  in  the  first  instance,  the  judge  of  the 
sufficiency  of  his  carriages;  and,  whei'e  there  was  no  special  con- 
tract, a  railroad  company  was  held  not  liable  in  an  action  by  a 
shipper  of  hay  to  recover  for  standards  voluntarily  erected  by  him 
upon  flat  cars,  for  safety  of  transportation.**  A  different  rule  to 
that  applied  to  railroads  has  been  held  where  the  carriage  is  by 
wagons,  and  where  a  shipper  of  perishable  goods  by  a  freighter, 
who  examifted  and  selected  as  suitable  for  the  work  the  wagons 
before  entering  into  the  contract,  he  was  held  to  be  estopped 
from  claiming  that  they  were  not  suited  to  the  business  of  trans- 
porting the  goods.*'  A  railroad  company  which  adopts  an  unsafe 
method   in   transporting  cattle  cannot  defend  by  setting  up   its 

90 

own  usage. 

§  13.  Tender  of  goods  by  shipper. 

Where  a  duty  to  furnish  facilities  for  transportation  rests 
upon  the  carrier,  either  by  law  or  contract,  the  shipper  must 
show  a  tender  of  the  goods  to  be  transported  at  a  proper 
place  for  receiving  such  freight,  and  when  goods  are  placed  at 
a  proper  place  along  a  line  of  railroad  to  be  carried,  and  the 
company,  on  demand,  refuses  to  furnish  cars,  a  sufficient  delivery 
has  been  made  to  give  a  right  of  action  against  the  company.'^ 
But  a  carrier's  announcement  through  its  agent  that  it  will  not 
ship  at  the  time  contracted  for  is  a  waiver  of  the  tender  of  the 
freight;^  and  where  it  notified  the  shipper  that  it  could  not  fur- 
nish cars  and  take  the  goods  from  a  certain  place  from  which  it 
had  agreed  to  transport  them,  it  was  unnecessary  to  make  further 
demands,  which  both  parties  knew  could  not  be  complied  with.'^ 

87.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dies,  R.  Cas.  532,  3  Am.  St.  Rep.  674.  Com- 
91  Tenn.  177,  18  S.  W.  366;  Combe  pare  Doty  v.  Strong,  1  Pin.  (Wis.) 
V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  L.  T.  N.  313,  40  Am.  Dec.  773.  See  also  When 
S.  613.  failure  or  refusal  to  carry  is  legally 

88.  Sloan  v.  St.  Tx)uis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  excusable,  §  5,  anto. 

58   Mo.  220.  92.  Texa.s,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nicliolson. 

89.  Carr  v.  Schafer,  15  Colo.  48,  24  61  Tox.  491,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cns. 
Pac.  873,  133. 

90.  Leonard  v.  Fitcliburg  R.  Co.,  93.  Bigelow  v.  Cliicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
143  Mass.  307.  104     Wis.    100,    80    N.    W.    95.       See 

91.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flan-  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Avery,  19  Tex. 
agan,    113   Infl.   488,   32   Am.   A  Eng.  Civ.  App.  235. 


15-i  ,        THE  LAW  OF  CARRIKKS. 

And  wliore  it  appears  that  more  of  a  tender  than  that  made  for 
tiansportation  would  be  a  mere  waste  of  time  and  money,  a 
useless  expenditure  of  either  is  not  required.'*  A  commmon 
earrier  does  not  become  liable  for  refusal  to  transport  goods  for 
a  former  shipper,  at  a  time  when  he  has  no  goods  for  shipment, 
unless  a  tender  is  subsequently  made;®^  but  the  fact  that  the  ship- 
per docs  not  own  or  have  tlie  stock  when  the  contract  is  made 
does  not  affect  the  liability  of  tlie  carrier  for  failure  to  provide 
cars,  on  tlie  ground  that  its  promise  to  do  so  was  without  con- 
sideration.®® To  hold  a  carrier  liable  for  damages  from  its  fail- 
ure to  ship  specified  property,  it  must  be  shown  that  the  con- 
tractual relation  of  shipper  and  carrier  existed,  or  was  sought 
to  be  established,  with  reference  to  the  specific  property,  and 
proof  of  the  company's  failure  to  ship  other  property  of  the  same 
kind  when  offered  is  not  sufficient.®^  Where,  in  an  action  against 
a  carrier,  it  appears  from  tlie  petition  that  the  refusal  to  carry 
was  for  a  reason  other  than  the  non-payment  of  freight,  a  tender 
of  freight  money  need  not  be  averred.®^  An  allegation  that  the 
goods  were  delivered  according  to  agreement  is  to  be  construed 
as  a  delivery  within  a  reasonable  time,  and  an  allegation  of  an 
offer  and  acceptance  is  an  allegation  of  an  acceptance  before  the 
offer  was  witlidrawn.'®  Under  the  common  law,  a  tender  of  a  car- 
load of  such  commodities  as  under  the  rules  of  a  state  railroad 
commission  are  to  be  loaded  by  the  shipper  is  not  a  good  tender, 
where  the  car  on  which  the  goods  were  when  offered  for  trans- 
portation was  the  car  of  another  line  and  was  marked  as  in  bad 
order,  and,  though  offered  several  times,  it  was  each  time  refused 
by  the  inspector  because  of  such  dangerous  condition.^ 

§  14.  Illegal  purpose  of  shipper  as  a  defense. 

A  railroad  company  with  knowledge  of  the  fact  is  not  exempt 

94.  State  ex  rel.  Cumberland  98.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris, 
Teleph.  &  Teleg.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  68  Tex.  49,  28  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  50. 
Co.,  52  La.  Ann.  1850,  28  So.  284.  99.  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  <J9 

95.  Wilder  v.  St.  Johnsbury,  etc.,  Va.  394,  3  Va.  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  321,  39 
R.  Co.,  66  Vt.  636,  30  Atl.  41.  S.  E.   144. 

96.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Racer,  1.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Cook  & 
5   Tnd.  App.   209.  Lockett,  4  Ga.  App.  698,  62  S.  E.  464. 

97.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Co- 
natser,  61  Ark.  560,  33  S.  W.  1057. 


CAKRIERS— DUTIES    AXD   LIABILITIES.  ^55 

from  liability  for  damages  for  failure  to  deliver  freight,  for 
the  reason  that  the  freight  is  to  be  used  for  an  illegal  purpose 
at  the  point  of  destination,  unless  that  illegal  purpose  was  the 
consideration  of  the  contract.^  A  person  seeking  to  recover 
against  a  carrier  on  the  theory  that  the  latter's  breach  of  con- 
tract prevented  him  from  shipping  his  cattle  to  a  certain  point 
in  time  for  the  Sunday  market  cannot  show  any  sale  or  market 
price  on  Sunday,  or  recover  any  damages,  or  the  difference  be- 
tween the  market  price  on  Sunday  and  any  other  day,  unless, 
by  a  custom  of  the  place,  payment  and  delivery  was  to  be  made 
on  Monday,  the  statute  prohibiting  Sunday  sales.'  It  is  no  excuse 
for  the  delay  of  a  railroad  company  in  forwarding  stock  tliat 
it  received  the  stock  on  Sunday;*  nor  will  the  fact  that  the 
contract  was  entered  into  on  Sunday  render  it  invalid,  where 
it  is  to  be  performed  on  Monday.^  A  carrier  is  not  relieved 
from  liability  for  loss  of  freight  by  its  negligence  by  the  fact 
that  the  freight  was  shipped  under  a  contract  for  a  special  rato 
and  rebate  in  violation  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Law;®  but 
when  an  interstate  railroad  is  sued  for  the  breach  of  a  contract 
to  carry  goods  at  a  reduced  rate,  evidence  that  the  contract  ia 
illegal  as  a  violation  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Law  is  ad- 
missible under  the  general  issue.^  No  damages  were  recoverable 
for  the  breach  of  a  contract  to  transport  gold  into  a  state  in 
insurrection  during  the  civil  war,  such  contract  being  unlawful.* 

§  15.  Proximate  cause  of  loss  or  injury. 

Where  a  railway  company  agreed  with  a  compress  company 
to  receive  and  transport  all  cotton  brought  by  its  owners  to  the 
compress   company,    the   railway   company   is   not   liable   to   the 

2.  Waters  v.  Richmond  &  D.  R.  Co.,  6.  Insurance  Co.  of  North  America 
110  N.  C.  338,  14  S.  E.  802,  55  Am.  v.  Delaware  Mut.  Safety  Ins.  Co.,  91 
&  Eng.  R.   Cas.  344.  Tenn.  537,  19  S.  W.  755. 

3.  McAbsher  v.  Richmond  &  D.  R.  7.  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  99 
Co.,  108  N.  C.  344,  12  S.  E.  892,  55  Va.  394,  3  Va.  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  321.  39 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  345.  S.  E.   144. 

4.  Guinn  v.  Waba.sh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8.  Gay's  Gold.  13  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
20  Mo.   App.   453.  358;  Cantu  v  Bennett,  39  Tex.  303. 

6.  Baker  v.  I-ouisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
10  Lea    (Tenn.),  308. 


^r^g  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

owners  or  insurers  of  such  cotton  for  its  destruction  by  fire,  dur- 
ing its  delay  to  furnish  transportation,  such  delay  not  being  the 
direct  and  proximate  cause  of  the  loss  by  fire.*  A  railroad  com- 
pany is  not  liable  for  injuries  to  freight  resulting  from  exposure 
to  mud  and  rain  in  consequence  of  the  company's  violation  of 
its  contract  with  the  road  over  which  the  freight  was  shipped, 
to  maintain  a  narrow  guage  track  for  the  benefit  of  that  road, 
as  the  exposure  and  not  the  failure  to  maintain  the  track  is  the 
proximate  cause  of  Uie  injury.^"  Loss  of  goods  by  fire  while 
waiting  for  a  car  at  a  mere  switch  is  not  the  proximate  result 
of  a  breach  of  contract  to  furnish  the  car  at  a  certain  time."  An 
action  against  a  railroad  company  founded  on  an  exclusion  from 
freight  facilities  can  not  be  maintained  on  evidence  showing  that 
plaintiff  was  crowded  out  by  those  with  whom  the  evidence  does 
not  connect  the  company.^ 

§  16.  Discrimination  in  charges  or  facilities. 

By  the  common  law  a  common  carrier  is  obliged  to  carry  for 
all,  without  unreasonable  discrimination,  either  in  charges  or  the 
facilities  of  actual  transportation,  and  equity  has  for  a  long 
time  granted  injunctions  against  extortionate  charges  and  unjust 
discriminations  in  the  business  of  common  carriers.^'  A  shipper 
has,  by  the  common  law,  a  right  of  action  for  unjust  discrimination 

9.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Com-  12.  Spurlock  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
mercial  U.  Ins.  Co.,  139  U.  S.  223,  Co.,  93  Mo.  530,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  137,  35  L.  Ed.       Caa.  538. 

154,  11  riup.  Ca.  Rep.  554,  revg.  Ma-  13.  Tift   v.   Southern   Ry.   Co.,   123 

rine  Ins.  Co.  v.  St.  Tjouis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Fed.  789;   Wheeler  v.  San  Francisco, 

41  Fed.  Rep.  643,  43  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Cal.  46,  89  Am.  Dec, 

Cas.  79,  19  Ins.  L.  J.  379,  695;  Mar-  147,  when  a  railroad  company  makes 

tin  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Ark.  contracts    beyond    the    limits    of    its 

510,  19  S  W.  314,  56  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  own  road,  and  holds  itself  out  ready 

Cas.  112.  to  do  so  with  all,  it  becomes  a  com- 

10.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Neel,  mon  carrier  beyond  its  own  limits, 
56  Ark.  279,  19  S.  W.  963,  12  Ry  &  and  is  bound  to  receive  passengors 
Corp.  L.  J.  110,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  when  the  proper  fare  is  paid.  See 
Cas.  428.  Central   Iron  Works  v.   Pennsylvania 

11.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  R.  Co.,  2  Dauph.  Co.  Rpp.  303.  over- 
Lilly  (Miss.),  8  So.  644,  45  Am.  &  ruling  a  demurrer,  interposed  on  tho 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  379.  crnund   that   equity   had   no  jurilulic- 


CARRIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES. 


157 


in  freiglit  charges.^*  It  is  the  duty  of  a  common  carrier  not  to 
make  or  give  any  undue  or  unreasonable  preference  or  advant- 
age to  or  in  favor  of  any  person,  and  not  to  subject  any  person 
to  undue  or  unreasonable  prejudice  or  disadvantage  in  respect  to 
terms,  facilities,  or  accommodations;  and  the  carrier  will  be 
liable  for  any  damage  arising  from  violation  of  this  duty.^*  Rail- 
road companies  enjoy  their  franchises,  which  embrace  much  of 
the  sovereign  power  of  the  State,  in  consideration  of  their  pro- 
moting commercial  intercourse,  and  serving  the  public  as  com- 
mon carriers.  They  are  under  obligation  to  receive  and  trans- 
port, impartially,  all  merchandise  and  passengers  offered  to  them 
on  the  terms  prescribed  by  the  grant  through  which  they  hold 
their  franchises.^^  They  must  receive  and  transport  property  in 
the  order  in  which  it  is  offered,  and  they  cannot  exercise  par- 


tion  of  the  matter  complained  of  in 
the  bill,  and  that  the  plaintiff's 
remedy,  if  any,  was  at  law. 

14.  Murray  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
92  Fed.  868,  35  C.  C.  A.  62,  13  Am. 
A  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  278,  affg.  62 
Fed.  24;  State  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  47  Ohio  St.  130,  23  N.  E.  923. 
7  L.  R.  A.  319;  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Wilson,  132  Ind.  517,  32  N.  E. 
311,  18  L.  R.  A.  105;  Fitzgerald  v. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  63  Vt.  169.  13 
L.  R.  A.  70,  3  Inters.  Com.  Rep.  633; 
Cook  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Iowa 
551,  46  N.  W.  1080,  25  Am.  St.  Rep. 
512,  9  L.  R  A.  764,  3  Inters.  Com. 
Rep.  383;  Cowden  v.  Pacific  Coast  S. 
S.  Co.,  94  Cal.  470,  29  Pac.  878,  28 
Am.  St.  Rep.  142,  18  L.  R.  A.  221, 
but  not  for  a  mere  discrimination  in 
favor  of  another  shipper. 

15.  McDufTee  v.  Portland,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  52  N.  BL  430,  13  Am.  Rep.  72,  2 
Am.  Ry.  Rep.  261;  Kecncy  v.  Grand 
Tnink  R.  Co.,  47  N  Y.  525,  where  It 
waa  shown  that  an  illegal  prcfcrenfe 
had  been  given  to  other  freight,  by 
means  of  which  cattio  wf-r^  dotalned 
and    injured,   this   was   held   to  be   a 


breach  of  the  contract  of  transporta- 
tion. 

16.  Rogers  Locomotive,         etc., 

Works  V.  Erie  R.  Co.,  20  N.  J.  Eq. 
379,  an  agreement  betwt^n  th  • 
directors  of  a  railroad  company 
and  an  express  cnmpany.  which 
transfers  the  whole  business  of  car- 
riage of  merchandise  over  the  route 
to  the  latter,  and  under  which  the 
railroad  company  refuse  to  carry  for 
the  general  public  while  the  express 
company  decline  to  carry  subject  to 
the  liabilities  of  common  carriers, 
and  are  at  liberty  to  charge  excessive 
freight,  is  a  violation  of  the  rail- 
road company's  obligations  to  the 
State,  and  may  be  relieved  against, 
upon  a  proper  bill  in  equity;  New 
England  Exp.  Co.  v.  Maine  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  57  Me.  183,  2  Am.  Rep.  31; 
Sandford  v.  Catawissa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 
Pa.  St.  378,  64  Am.  Dec.  667,  a  rail- 
road company  required  by  its  cliar- 
ter  to  transport  in  the  order  of  their 
reception  all  goods,  etc,  ofTcrtd,  "  so 
that  equal  and  impartial  ju.'^tico 
shall  be  done  to  all  owners  of  prop- 
erty  who   shall    p«iy   or  tender "   the 


158 


TllK  LAW  OF  CAKEIKKS. 


tiality  in  accepting  the  property  tendered  by  some  and  rejecting 
that  offered  by  others.     If  this  rnle  is  viohited,  the  company  ivS 
liable  for  all  damages  resulting  therefrom."     Statutes  providing 
against  any  discrimination   in  favor  of  or  against  any  shipper, 
cither  as  to  charges  or  facilities,  are  in  force  in  England,  and  in  the 
United   States,   through  federal  and  state  legislation.     The  pro- 
visions of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act  are  considered  elsewhere." 
I'nder  the  English  act,  providing  that  no  company  shall  make 
or  give  any  undue  or  unreasonable  preference  or  advantage  to  or 
in  favor  of  any  particular  person  or  company,  or  any  particular 
description  of  traffic  in  any  respect  whatever,  it  has  been  held  to 
be  unlawful  discrimination   to  require  a  consignor  to  sign  con- 
ditions affixed  to  a  bill  of  lading  which  others  of  the  same  class 
are  not  required  to  sign;^'  to  receive  goods  of  certain  consignors 
after  the  closing  of  its  offices  and  refusing  those  of  others  offer- 
ing at  the  same  time,  no  unusual  fact  appearing  as  the  reason  for 
the  discrimination;^*^  to  admit  into  the  station  the  vans  of  cer- 
tain shippers  at  a  later  hour  than  those  of  others  are  allowed  to 
enter.^^    tfnder  state  statutes,  which  follow  in  their  main  features 
the  English  statutes,  it  has  been  held  that  the  power  of  the  legis- 
lature is  by  implication  of  the  constitution  restrained  to  a  pro- 
proper  freight,  has  no  right  to  grant  19.  Baxendale    v.    Bristol,    etc.,    R. 
to  one  individual   an   exclusive   right       Co.,  11  C.  B.  N.  S.  787,  103  E.  C.  L. 
of  carrying  "  express  matter  "  in   its      787.     See  Davis  v.  Taft  Vale  R.  Co. 
passenger  trains;  Messenger  v.  Penn-       (H.   L.),   64   U   J.   Q.  B.  N.   S.   488, 
sylvania  R.  Co.,  37  N.  J.  L.  531.  18      App.  542,  11  K.   189;   South  Eastern 
Am.  Rep.  754,  in  the  grant  of  a  fran-      R.   Co.   v.    Railway   Com'rs,   41   L.   T. 
chise  of  building  and  using  a  public      N.  S.  760,  28  W.  R.  464,  as  to  ques- 
railway,   there    is    an    implied    condi-      tions  arising  under  the  statute, 
tion  that  it  is  held  as  a  quasi  public  20.  Carton  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
trust    for   the    benefit   of   the    public,       1  B.  &  S.  113.   101  E.  C.  L.  112,   30 
and    the    company    possessed    of    the      L.  J.  Q.   B.  273,   6   C.  B.  N.   S.   639, 
grant  must  exercise  a  perfect  impar-       95  E.  C.  L.  639,  28  L.  J.  C.  P.  306. 
tiality  to  all  who  seek  the  benefit  of  21.  Palmer  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
the  trust.                                                             L.  R.  1  C.  P.  588,  35  L.  J.  C.  P.  289; 

17.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  Palmer  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 
63  Tex.  322,  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  6  C.  P.  194,  40  L.  J.  C.  P.  133;  Mar- 
421.  riott  V.  London,  etc.,  R. .Co.,  1  C.  B. 

18.  See  Interstate  Transportation,  N.  S.  499,  87  E.  C.  L.  499.  See  also 
chaps.  31,  32  and  33.  cases  cited  in  notes  63  and  64. 


CAKRIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES. 


15D 


hibition  of  those  discriminations  which  are  unjust;'^  that  over- 
charges made  in  violation  of  a  statute,  prohibiting  increase  of 
freight  rates  over  the  rate  charged  at  the  time  freight  is  ten- 
dered to  a  railroad,  may  be  recovered  ;^^  that  a  railroad  company 
which  charges  more  for  a  short  than  a  long  haul,  in  violation 
of  a  constitutional  provision,  is  liable  to  the  shipper  for  the 
excess  charged,  as  he  whose  money  is  taken  from  him  illegally 
is  to  that  extent  damaged.^*    Eeference  must  be  had  to  the  statutes 


22.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People, 
67  111.  11,  16  Am.  Rep.  599.  The 
establishment  permanently  of  less 
rates  of  freight  at  points  of  competi- 
tion with  other  roads  than  is  fixed 
at  other  places  for  the  same  distance 
cannot  be  justified  by  showing  that 
the  rates  charged  at  such  other 
places  are  reasonably  low,  and  that 
the  rates  charged  at  competing  points 
are  unreasonably  low.  Even  if  the 
higher  rates  are  reasonably  low, 
when  regarded  with  reference  to  the 
profit  on  the  capital  invested  in  the 
road,  they  are  not  reasonable  in  the 
true  sense  of  the  term,  if  no  satis- 
factory reason  can  be  given  for 
charging  less  rates  for  the  same  or 
greater  services  to  persons  at  other 
stations.  Such  corporations  should 
not  use  their  power  to  benefit  par- 
ticular individuals  or  build  up  par- 
ticular localities  by  arbitrary  dis- 
criminations in  their  favor  that  may 
cause  injury  to  other  persons  or 
places  engaf^od  in  rival  pursuits,  ^^r 
occupying  rival   positions.     Id. 

23.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wol- 
cott,  141  Ind.  267,  39  N.  E.  451,  61 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  135,  50  Am.  St. 
Rep.  320. 

24.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Walker,  110  Ky.  961,  23  Ky.  Law 
Rep.  453,  63  S.  W.  20.  Under  a  pro- 
vision    that    all     railroad     companies 


shall  "  haul  freight  of  the  same  class 
for  all  persons,  associations,  or  cor- 
porations from  and  to  the  same 
points  and  upon  the  same  conditions, 
in  the  same  manner  and  for  the  same 
charges,  and  for  the  same  method  of 
payment,"  a  railroad  company  may 
charge  less  for  hauling  coal  used  for 
manufacturing  purposes  than  it 
charges  for  hauling  coal  for  domestic 
purposes,  as  the  fact  that  the  com- 
pany receives  the  manufactured  pro- 
duct for  return  shipment  in  the  one 
case  and  not  in  the  other  constitutes 
a  diflerence  in  conditions  which  au- 
thorizes a  difference  in  charges. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Common- 
wealth   (Ky.),  57  S.  W.  508. 

Under  a  provision  that  it  shall  be 
unlawful  for  any  person  or  corpora- 
tion owning  or  operating  a  railroad, 
or  any  common  carrier,  to  charge  or 
receive  a  greater  compensation  for 
transportation  under  substantially 
similar  circumstances  and  conditions 
for  a  shorter  than  a  longer  distance 
over  the  same  line  in  the  same  direc- 
tion, the  shorter  being  includi'd  with- 
in the  longer  distance,  except  under 
pormission  of  the  railroad  commission 
duly  granted  on  application,  the  fact 
that  competition  exists  at  the  point 
to  which  the  short  haul  is  made  does 
not  authorize  the  carrier  to  charge 
more  for  the  short  haul  than  for  tho 


160 


THE  LAW  OF  GAlUllKKiJ. 


of  the  diflFerent  states  to  dotormine  the  effect  of  such  decisions." 
Actions  to  recover  damages  for  discriminations  in  rates  must 
be  govorued,  as  to  limiLaLions,  by  the  statutes  of  the  state  wherein 
they  are  brought."  An  action  cannot  be  maintained  against  a 
carrier  to  enforce  a  payment  of  rebates  on  goods  shipped,  under  a 
contract  which  is  void  as  a  discrimination  in  rates." 

§  17.  The  rule  does  not  require  the  same  rates  and  facilities  for 
all. 
Independently  of  the  statutes  it  is  unlawful  to  discriminate 
in  favor  of  or  against  any  shipper.'*  A  majority  of  the  recent 
cases  hold  that  at  common  law  a  carrier  cannot  justly  discrimi- 
nate in  rates  between  persons  in  the  same  circumstances.''''     But 


long  haul  without  permission  of  the 
commission.  Hutchcson  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  108  Ky.  615,  22  Ky.  Law 
4  Rep.  361,  57  S.  W.  251. 

As  the  presumption  is  absolute  that 
a  shipper  is  damaged  when  he  is  re- 
quired to  pay  a  greater  charge  than 
the  law  allows,  a  railroad  company 
which  charges  more  for  a  short  haul 
than  for  a  long  haul,  in  violation  of 
Const.  §  218,  is  liable  for  the  excess 
charged,  though  it  might  have  com 
plied  with  the  law  without  decreas 
ing  the  charge  for  the  short  haul 
Hutcheson  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co. 
22  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1871,  63  S.  W.  33 
rehearing  108  Ky.  615,  22  Ky.  Law 
Rep.  361,  57  S.  W.  251,  denied. 

25.  After  defendant  railroad  com- 
pany had  given  plaintiff  freight  rates 
over  its  road  between  G.  and  another 
point,  plaintiff  contracted  for  a 
number  of  cars,  making  a  shipment 
therein,  and  purchased  the  cargoes 
of  a  mill  in  G.,  situated  on  another 
railroad  line,  and  defendant  was 
compelled  to  pay  Bwitching  charges 
for  each  car  in  order  to  get  the  cars 
transferred  to  its  own  line.  It  was 
held  that  defendant  was  not  liable 
to  plaintiff,  under  a  statute  permit- 
ting  a   person   damaged   by   an   over- 


charge or  discrimination  to  recover 
twice  the  amount  of  the  injury.  Gil- 
liland  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  (Miss.) 
33  So.  916. 

26.  Ratican  v.  Terminal  R.  Ass'n 
of  St.  Louis,  114  Fed.  666. 

27.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dia- 
mond Coal  Co.,  61  Ohio  St.  242,  65 
N.  E.  616. 

28.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bayles, 
19  Colo.  348,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
128;  Bayles  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
13  Colo.  181,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
42. 

29.  Root  V.  Long  Island  R.  Co., 
114  N.  Y.  300,  4  L.  R.  A.  331,  2  In- 
ters. Com.  Rep,  576;  Cleveland,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Closser,  126  Ind.  348,  26 
N.  E.  159,  3  Inters.  Com.  Rep.  387, 
9  L.  R.  A.  757;  Cook  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  8  Iowa,  551,  46  N.  W.  1080, 
25  Am.  St.  Rep.  512,  9  L.  R.  A.  764, 
3  Inters.  Com.  Rep.  383;  Fitzgerald 
V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  63  Vt.  169, 
13  L.  R.  A.  70;  Messenger  v.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.,  37  N.  J.  L.  531;  18 
Am.  Rep.  754,  affg.  36  N.  J.  L.  407, 
13  Am.  Rep.  543;  State  ex  rel.  At- 
water  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48 
N.  J.  L.  55;  Hayes  v.  Pennsylvania 
R.   Co.,   12   Fed.   309. 


CARRIERS— DUTIES  AND  LIABILITIES.  iQi 

the  nile  does  not  require  that  every  shipper  shall  be  charged  ex- 
actly the  same  rates  or  allowed  the  same  facilities;  it  requires 
that  the  carrier  shall  not  unreasonably  or  unjustly  discriminate 
in  favor  of  or  against  any  shipper  where  the  circumstances  and 
conditions  are  the  same.  What  is  reasonable  and  just  in  a 
common  carrier  in  a  given  case  is  a  complex  question  into  which 
enters  many  elements  for  consideration.  The  questions  of  time, 
place,  distance,  facilities,  quantity  and  character  of  the  goods, 
and  many  other  matters  must  be  considered;  regard  must  be  had 
not  only  to  the  convenience  of  the  public  but  also  to  that  of  the 
carrier;  and  the  character  of  their  shipments  may  justify  a 
difference  in  rates  or  facilities.  The  carrier  can  afford  to  carry 
10,000  tons  of  coal  or  other  property,  for  instance,  to  a  given 
place  for  less  compensation  per  ton  than  he  could  carry  fifty, 
and  where  the  business  of  a  shipper  is  of  great  magnitude  a  re- 
bate from  the  standard  rate  might  be  just  and  reasonable  while 
it  could  not  fairly  be  granted  to  another  who  desired  to  have  a 
trifling  amount  of  goods  carried  to  the  same  point.  So  long  as 
the  regular  standard  rates  maintained  by  the  carrier  and  offered 
to  all  are  reasonable  one  shipper  cannot  complain  because  his 
neighbor,  by  reason  of  special  circumstances  and  conditions,  can 
make  it  an  object  for  the  carrier  to  give  him  reduced  rates.^" 
When  the  conditions  and  circumstances  are  identical  the  charges 
to  all  shippers  for  the  same  service  must  be  equal;  but  if  the 
general  rates  are  reasonable  a  deviation  therefrom  by  the  car- 
rier in  favor  of  particular  customers,  for  special  reasons,  not  ap- 
plicable to  the  whole  public,  does  not  furnish  parties  not  simihirly 
situated  any  just  ground  for  complaint.^^     A  recovery  by  a  ship- 

80.  Lough   V.    Outerbridge,   143   N.  31.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  v.  Gage,   13 

T.     271,     42     Am.     St.     Rep.    712;  Gray     (Mass.),    393;     DcMenacho   v. 

Butchers',    etc.,    Stock    Yards    Co.    v.  Ward,     23     Blatchf.     (U.     S.)      505; 

Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    67   Fed.    35,  Johnson  v.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Itt 

31  U.  8.  App.  252;   West  v.  London,  Fla.   623,  26  Am.  Rep.  731;   Concord, 

«tc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  5  C.  P.  622;   Lees  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Forsaith,  50  N.  H.  122, 

T.    Lancashire,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    18    Sol.  47  Am.   Rep.   181;   Avingi-r   v.   S<Mith 

Jour.  628;  Cooper  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Carolina  R.  Co.,  29  S.  C.  265,  13  Am. 

Co.,  4   C.  B.  N.  8.  738,   99   E.   C.   L.  St.  Rop.  716,  35  Am.  4  Enji;.  R.  Ca* 

738;   Nicholson  ▼.  Great  Western   R.  519;  State  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

Co.,  5  C.  B.  N.  S.  366,  94  E.  C.  L.  366,  47   Ohio   St.    130,   42   Am.  k   Eng.    R. 

4  Jur.  N.  8.  1187.  '  '«•    330;    Ragan    t.    AiJten,    9    Le*. 

11 


l(]-2  TDK  LAW  (W  CARRIERS. 

per  from  a  t-arrior  Iteranso  of  partiality  and  favoritism  to  other 
shippers  cannot  be  hail,  in  the  absence  of  statute,  provided  the 
complaining  shipper  has  not  been  charged  more  than  a-  reason- 
able ratc.^^  So  there  can  be  no  unjust  discrimination  of  which 
commissions  and  courts  can  take  cognizance  unless  it  is  unlaw- 
ful." In  determining  the  reasonableness  of  rates  to  be  charged 
for  railroad  transportation,  the  original  cost  of  construction,  the 
amount  expended  in  permanent  improvements,  the  amount  and 
market  value  of  bonds  and  stock,  the  present,  as  compared  with 
the  original,  cost  of  construction,  the  probable  earning  capacity 
of  the  property  under  the  rates  prescribed,  and  the  sum  required 
to  meet  operating  expenses,  and  possibly  other  matters,  must  be 
considered.^*  It  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  send  forward  goods 
in  the  order  of  time  in  which  they  were  received  for  transporta- 
tion, whenever  there  is  necessary  delay  in  forwarding  goods  re- 
ceived for  shipment  as,  for  example,  by  reason  of  a  heavy  block- 
ade of  freight,  and  the  carrier  is  liable  for  receiving  the  goods 
of  one  shipper  after  rejecting  those  of  a  prior  applicant  on  the 
ground  of  such  a  blockade.^"  This  rule  against  discrimination  in 
the  order  of  shipment  of  goods  tendered  is  not  applied  in  the 
case  of  perishable  freights,  which  have  a  preference  owing  to  the 
dangers  to  which  they  are  subject  by  delay  ;^®  and  it  has  been  held 
not  to  apply  to  exceptional  cases  where  it  was  necessary  to  for- 

(Tenn.),    609,    42    Am.    Rep.    684,    9  Johnson  v.  Dominion  Express  Co.,  28 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  201;   Sargent  v.  Ont.  Rep.  203. 

B.  &  L.  R.  Corp.,  115  Mass.  422;  33.  Brewer  v.  Central  of  Ga.  R. 
Mogul  S.  S.  Co.  V.  McGregor,  Gow  &  Co.,  84  Fed.  258. 

Co.,  L.  R.  21  Q.  B.  544,  affd.  L.  R.  23  34.  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U.  S.  465, 

Q.  B.  598;   Evershed  v.  London,  etc..  Adv.  S.  U.  S.  438,  42  L.  Ed.  819,  30 

R.   Co.,   L.   R.   3   Q.   B.   135;    Canada  Chic.    Leg.    News    243,    18    Sup.    Ct. 

Southern     R.     Co.     v.     Tnternational  Rep.    418,    modified    on    rehearing    in 

Bridge  Co.,  L.  R.  8  App.   723;    Ran-  171  U.  S.  361,  Adv.  S.  U.  S.  967,  18 

some   V.   Eastern   Counties   R.   Co.,    1  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  488. 

C.  B.  N.  S.  437,  87  E.  C.  L.  437;  35.  Acheson  v.  New  York  Cent., 
Baxendale  v.  Eastern  Counties  R.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  N.  Y.  653,  17  N.  Y. 
Co.,  4  C.  B.  N.  S.  78,  93  E.  C.  L.  78;  St.  Rep.  278;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Branley  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  12  Smith,  63  Tex.  322,  22  Am.  &  Eng. 
l>  B.  N.  S.  74,  104  E.  C.  L.  74.  R.  Cas.  421 ;  Page  v.  Great  Northern 

32.  Parsons  v.  Cliicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,      R.  Co.,  2  Ir.  Rep.   (C.  L.)   288. 
167  U.  S.  447,  17  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  887;  36.   See    Liability    for    delay,    per- 

ishable freights,  §  7,  chap.  8. 


CAERIERS— DUTIES   AND    LIABILITIES.  163 

ward  relief  for  sufferers  from  fire  or  flood."  Carriers  like  ex- 
press companies  are  not  bound  to  go  beyond  the  limits  in  a  city, 
established  by  themselves  and  other  companies,  to  receive  goods 
for  transportation,  or  to  deliver  goods  beyond  such  limits,  to  one 
having  knowledge  of  them.^*  It  has  been  held  that  a  common 
carrier  may  require  prepayment  from  one  shipper  though  it  may 
not  require  it  from  others,  since  demanding  prepayment  is  but 
the  exercise  of  a  right  to  demand  of  every  one  that  the  charges 
upon  all  freight  shall  be  paid  in  advance.^ 

§  18.  The  compensation  of  the  carrier. 

The  reward  which  the  carrier  receives  for  the  carriage  or  trans- 
portation of  property  is  one  of  the  grounds  on  which  the  carrier's 
responsibility  is  based.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  compensation 
should  be  agreed  upon  at  a  fixed  sum ;  the  law  implies  an  under- 
taking or  promise  on  the  part  of  the  shipper  to  pay  a  reasonable 
reward  for  the  carriage  of  goods  delivered  by  him  to  the  carrier 
for  that  purpose.*"  He  may  demand  prepayment  of  charges,"  or,, 
after  he  has  performed  the  service,  recover  the  amount  agreed 
upon,  or,  in  the  absence  of  an  agreement,  a  reasonable  compensa- 
tion from  the  shipper  or  consignor.  The  person  liable  for  the 
freight  charges,  when  action  is  brought,  may  offset  or  counterclaim 
any  damages  arising  from  breach  of  the  carrier's  contract,  or  for 
loss  or  damage  to  the  goods,*^  or  damage  caused  by  unreasonable 
delay.'*^     In  England  a  different  rule  prevails  and,  if  the  carrier 

37.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Bur-  42.  Gleadell  v,  Thomson,  56  N.  Y. 
rows,  33  Mich.  6.  194;   Hinsdall  v.  Weed,  5  Denio    (N. 

38.  Bullard  v.  American  Express  Y.),  172;  Hill  v.  Lcadbetter,  42  Me. 
Co.,  107  Mich.  695,  65  N.  W.  551,  61  572;  Kaskaskia  Bridge  Co.  v.  Shan- 
Am.  St.  Rep.  358,  33  L.  R.  A.  66,  2  non,  1  Gilman  (111.),  15;  Leech  v. 
Dct.  L.  N.  735.  Baldwin,  5  Watts    (Pa.),  446;   Hum- 

39.  Randall  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  phreys  v.  Read,  6  Whart.  (Pa.)  435; 
Co.,  103  N.  C.  612,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Bartram  v.  McKco,  1  Watts  (Pa.), 
Cas.  75;  Allen  v.  Cape  Fear,  etc.,  R.  39;  Edwards  v.  Todd.  1  Scam.  (III.) 
Co.,  100  N.  C.  397,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  462;  Dyer  v.  Railway  Co.,  42  Vt. 
Cas.   532.  441;    Ewart  v.  Kerr.    1    Rice    (S.  C.) 

40.  Merritt  v.  Earle,  29  N.  Y.  115;  203;  Snow  v.  Carnitli,  1  S.  V.  R.  (U. 
Allen   V.    Sewall,    2    Wend.     (N.    Y.)  S.)    324. 

327.  43.  Page   v.   Miinro,    1    Holmes    (U. 

41.  See  §   6,  ante. 


1G4  THE  I^iW  OF  CARRIERS. 

has  carried  aud  is  ready  to  deliver  the  goods,  he  is  entitled  to  re- 
cover his  freight  charges  in  full,  and  the  owner  or  consignee  must 
resort  to  a  separate  action  to  recover  any  loss  sustained/*  As  a 
general  rule  the  carrier  can  only  recover  compensation  for  the 
carrying  of  the  goods  actually  delivered  to  the  consignee.  Tf  the 
goods  have  heen  lost  through  leakage  or  other  causes  without  the 
negligence  of  the  carrier,  or  if  perishable  goods  have  decayed  and 
been  cast  away,  or  if  goods  have  been  necessarily  jettisoned  in  a 
storm,  or  lost  from  causes  against  which  the  carrier  has  protected 
himself  by  contract,  he  will  still  be  entitled  to  recover  freight 
charges  upoD  the  goods  which  he  safely  delivers,  but  not  for  the 
freight  charges  on  those  which  were  lost  and  could  not  be  de- 
livered.** If  part  of  the  property  be  lost,  and  the  consignee  accepts 
the  residue,  he  is  liable  for  freight  pro  rata,  but  may  recoup  the 
value  of  that  not  delivered.*^  But  if  the  carrier  is  ready  to  deliver 
the  goods  to  the  consignee  and  oflFers  to  do  so,  but  the  latter  is  not 
prepared  to  receive  them,  and  the  goods  are  subsequently  lost 
without  fault  of  the  carrier,  full  freight  is  nevertheless  recover- 
able.*' Where  the  carrier  is  prevented  from  delivering  the  freight 
because  of  inevitable  accident,  he  can  recover  freight  charges  for 
only  that  portion  which  is  delivered.  As  to  the  freight  destroyed, 
the  owner  must  lose  the  goods  and  the  carrier  the  freight.**  The 
obligation  of  the  carrier  continues  after  arrival  at  the  point  or 
place  of  delivery  until  a  reasonable  time  after  such  arrival  in  order 
to  allow  the  consignee  to  take  possession  of  the  goods,  and  freight 
charges  are  not  earned  or  recoverable  where  the  goods  are  lost  with- 
out the  fault  of  the  carrier,  after  the  arrival  at  the  place  of  de- 
livery and  notice  thereof,  but  before  a  reasonable  time  for  remov- 
ing the  goods  has  elapsed.*'  And  when  by  contract  the  shipper 
assumed  all  risks  and  loss  of  its  property  by  fire,  when  in  the 

S.),  232;  The  Success,  7  Blatchf.   (U.  47.  Clendaniel    v.    Tuckerman,    17 

S.)    551.  Barb.   (N.  Y.),  184. 

44.  Dakin  v.  Oxley,  15  Ck)m.  B.  N.  48.  Price   v.   Hartshorn,   44   N.   Y. 
S.   646.  94,   4   Am.   Rep.    645,   affg.   45   Barb. 

45.  Sfceelman    v.    Taylor,    3    Ware  (N.  Y.)   655,  668;   Harris  v.  Rand,  4 
(U.  S.),   52;    The  Brig  Collenberg,   1  N.  H.  259. 

Black     (U.    S.),    170;    The    Cuba,    3  49.  Russell  Mfg.  Co.  t.  New  Haven 

Ware   (U.  S.),  260.  Steamboat  Co.,   52  N.  Y.   657,  50  N. 

46.  Hinsdell  v.  Weed,  5  Denio    (N.  Y.  121;  McKee  t.  Hecksher,  10  Daly 
Y.)),  172.  (N.  Y.),  393. 


CARRIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES. 


105 


charge  or  custody  of  the  carrier,  the  carrier  was  not  entitled  to 
recover  freight,  nor  back  charges  paid  by  it  to  a  co-coutractor, 
when  the  property  was  destroyed  by  an  accidental  fire  while  in  the 
custody  of  the  carrier." 

§  19.  Excessive  charges  and  actions  therefor. 

The  common  law  puts  no  restrictions  upon  the  carrier  in  respect 
to  his  demand  for  compensation  except  that  his  charges  shall  be 
reasonable.  There  is  no  common  law  requiring  the  carrier  to 
charge  equal  rates.  The  rates  must  merely  not  be  excessive.  The 
commonness  of  the  duty  to  carry  for  all  does  not  involve  a  com- 
monness or  equality  of  compensation.  The  tariff  of  rates,  or  what 
is  charged  to  one  party,  is  but  a  matter  of  evidence  from  which 
it  may  be  determined  whether  a  charge  to  another  is  reasonable." 
3Ioneys  illegally  exacted  as  a  condition  of  the  transportation  or 
delivery  of  goods,  beyond  the  amount  to  which  the  party  demand- 
ing is  justly  entitled,  when  paid  under  protest,  in  order  to  secure 
the  transportation  or  to  obtain  possession  of  the  goods,  are  not 
paid  voluntarily  but  under  compulsion,  and  may  be  recovered." 


50.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t. 
Btandard  Oil  Co.,  87  N.  Y.  486,  alTg. 
20  Hun   (N.  Y.),  39. 

51.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
son, 119  Ind.  352,  4  L.  R.  A.  244,  21 
N.  E.  341,  6  R.  4  Corp.,  L.  J.  11; 
Johnson  ▼.  Pensacola  R.  Co.,  IP  Fla. 
623,  26  Am.  Rep.  731;  Harris  v, 
Packard,  3  Taunt.  254,  "  a  carrier  is 
bound  by  law  to  carry  everything 
which  is  brought  to  him  for  a  rea- 
sonable sum  to  be  paid  to  him  for  the 
same  carriage  ami  not  to  extort  what 
he  will;  we  cannot  say  that  the 
carrier  is  bound  to  carry  anything 
bpyond  articles  of  such  class  as  he  is 
under  a  legal  obligation  to  carry,  but 
it  is  unqupstionably  true  that  his 
charge  be  '  rcasonahlo.' "  See  also 
Pickford  v.  Grand  Junction  R.  Co.,  8 
M.  ft  W.  378. 

"  It  may  be  in  the  nature  of  a 
quantum  meruit,"  says  Mr.  Justice 
Story,  speaking  of  the  hire  or  recom- 
pense   of    common    carriers,    in    Citi- 


zens' Bank  v.  Nantucket  S.  Co.,  2 
fcjtory  ( LJ.  S.),  35.  The  same  view  is 
announced  in  Van  Bokkelin  v.  Inger- 
soll,  5  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  340,  and  Bridge 
V.  Johnson,  5  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  350. 
See  also  Fitchburg  R.  Co.  v.  Gage  12 
Gray    (Mass.),  393. 

52.  Harmony    v.    Bingham,    12    N. 
Y.  99,   1  Duer    (N.  Y.),  209;    Parker 
v.  The  Railway   Co.,   6   Exch.   702    6 
El.  &  B.  77;  Ashmole  v.  Wainwright, 
2    Q.    B.    837;    Snowdon    v.    Davis,    1 
Taunt.  359;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Walker,  23  Ky.  Law  Rep.  453,  63  So. 
20;     Virginia    Coal    4    Iron    Co.    v. 
Ix)uisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Va.  776,  37 
S.   E.   310,  2  Va.  Sup.  Ct,  Rep.  631. 
Where,    by    a    traffic    arrangement 
between    a    standard    guago    railroaJ 
and   a  connecting  narrow  puag<*   line, 
shiprn'^ntH   of  goods   ovor   the   narrow 
guage   line   and   then   over  the   stand- 
ard   gunge    were    cliarged    for    by   the 
standard   guage  at  the   rntf   of  throe 
narrow   guage   cars    to   two   standard 


IGO 


THE  r.AW  OF  CARRIERS. 


Where  a  eousignee  paid  an  excess  of  freight  charged  over  the  rate 
speciilod  in  the  bill  of  lading  under  protest,  such  additional  pay- 
ment was  not  voluntary,  so  as  to  preclude  him  from  maintaining 
an  action  to  rtnover  the  same.'^  Where  a  shipper  in  order  to 
obtains  cars  to  ship  his  grain,  is  compelled  to  pay  an  additional 
charge,  or  suliVr  the  alternative  of  paying  damages  arising  from 
a  failure  to  deliver  the  grain  as  agreed,  such  payment  is  not  volun- 
tary, and  will  not  preclude  an  action  to  recover  back  the  money 
so  paid  for  cars.^*  In  an  action  by  the  shipper  against  the  re- 
ceiving carrier  to  recover  the  difference  between  the  amount  al- 
leged to  have  been  stated  by  the  agent  as  the  rate  over  the  lines  of 
the  connecting  carrier,  and  that  actually  charged,  a  general  denial 
by  defendant  raised  an  issue  as  to  whether  the  agent's  statements 
bound  the  receiving  carrier,  and  the  burden  of  proof  to  show  that 
the  station  agent  had  authority  to  bind  his  company  was  on  plain- 
tiff." A  letter  from  one  of  the  railroad  commissioners  is  not 
proper  evidence  to  show  the  commission  rates  on  goods  shipped 


guage  ones,  and  a  shipper  of  cattle 
over  the  lines  (the  carriage  com- 
mencing over  the  narrow  guage 
road)  knew  of  such  agreement,  he 
was  not  charged  in  excess  of  the 
tariff  rates,  though,  owing  to  the 
•taanner  in  which  the  cattle  \^ere 
loaded  in  the  narrow  guage  cars  the 
broad  guage  railroad  found  that  it 
could  and  did  place  the  cattle  in  a 
less  number  of  standard  guage  cars 
than  he  had  receipted  for.  Carlisle 
V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  97  Mo.  App. 
571,  71  S.  W.  475. 

53.  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Anniston 
Foundry  &  Mach.  Co.,  135  Ala.  315, 
33  So.  274,  and  the  fact  that  the  rate 
specified  in  the  bill  of  lading  was 
fixed  by  the  agent  by  mistake  did  not 
authorize  the  carrier  to  exact  an  in- 
creased rate. 

54.  Galesburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  West, 
108  m.  App.  504,  holding  also  that 
after  a  common  carrier  has  estab- 
lished   a    schedule    rate    for    hauling 


grain  between  two  stations,  it  cannot 
charge  one  shipper  an  additional  sura 
for  switching  cars  between  his  eleva- 
tor and  the  carrier's  tracks. 

Where  in  an  action  against  a  rail- 
road company  to  recover  an  alleged 
overcharge  of  freight,  it  appeared 
that  defendant  had  contracted  to 
transport  the  goods  for  a  certain 
sum,  but  that,  when  the  goods  ar- 
rived at  their  point  of  destination, 
the  connecting  carrier  refused  to  de- 
liver them,  except  on  the  payment  of 
additional  freight,  but  there  was  no 
showing  that  the  defendant  received 
any  part  of  the  sum  so  collected,  it 
was  held,  that  a  judgment  against 
the  defendant  for  the  over  charge  ex- 
acted by  the  connecting  carrier  was 
unauthorized.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Henderson  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  73  S. 
W.  36. 

55.  McLagan  v.  Chicago,  etc,  R. 
Co.    (Iowa),   89  N.   W.   233. 


CARRIERS— DUTIES   AND   LIABILITIES.  167 

bj  a  common  carrier  in  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  over- 
charges'® 

§  20.  Injunctions. 

A  bill  bj  a  carrier  for  an  injunction  to  restrain  hackmen  from 
entering  its  station  grounds  to  solicit  passengers  and  baggage, 
after  notice  not  to  do  so,  is  not  demurrable  for  failure  to  allege 
that  plaintiff  has  been  injured  by  such  trespassers,  since  damage 
is  the  necessary  result  thereof."  A  complaint  for  an  injunction 
by  a  railroad  company  against  one  who  has  violated  its  rules  in 
coming  on  its  station  grounds  to  solicit  business  is  sufficient  where 
it  alleges  that  the  company  has  been  damaged  thereby,  and  that 
defendant's  property  is  insufficient  to  respond  in  damages,  without 
setting  out  the  evidence  to  show  the  elements  of  such  damages,  if 
facts  are  set  forth  which  show  that  the  damage  might  be  great, 
on  account  of  the  obstruction  of  the  company's  business.^ 

56.  Wells,    Fargo    Express    Co.    v.  177  Mass.  230,  58  N.  E,  €89,  83  Am. 

Williams   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  71  S.  W.  St.  Rep.  275. 

314,  holding  also  that  the  statute  58.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sco- 
does  not  prohibit  a  carrier  from  villa,  71  Conn.  136,  41  Atl.  146,  42  L. 
charging  less  than  the  maximum  R.  A.  157,  71  Am.  St.  Rep.  159,  a  corn- 
rates  fixed  by  the  Commission,  where  plaint  for  an  injunction  is  not  demur- 
no  discrimination  appears;  and,  rablo  if,  on  any  state  of  proof  which 
where  the  carrier  after  agreeing  to  its  allegations  justify,  the  court  could 
carry  at  a  reduced  rate,  collects  the  grant  the  injunction,  in  the  reaaon- 
full  rate,  the  difference  may  be  re-  able  exercise  of  judicial  discretion, 
covered  by  the  shipper.  See  also,  Joyce  on  Injunctions,  Vol. 

67.  Boston  &  M.  R.  R.  t.  Sullivan,  1,  p.  65,  §  31. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

Commencement  of  Caukier's  J-tIability. — Delivery  to    - 

Caukikr. 

SXCTION     1.  Commencement  of  carrier's  liability. 

2.  Effect  of  delivery  and  acceptance  other  than   initiating  liability 

of  carrier. 

3.  Acts  constituting  delivery  to  and  acceptance  by  carrier. 

4.  Constructive  delivery — Custom  and  usage. 

5.  Questions  of  law  and  fact — Question  for  jury. 

6.  Acceptance  may  be  implied  from  proper  tender. 

7.  Deposit  of  goods  elsewhere  than  at  regular  office  or  depot. 

8.  Delivery  to  agent  of  carrier — Authority  of  agent  to  receive  goods. 

9.  Bill  of  lading  not  essential  to  constitute  delivery. 

10.  Bill  of  lading  as  an  evidence  of  delivery. 

11.  Duty  to  issue  bill  of  lading. 

12.  Loading  goods  on  cars. 

13.  Proof  of  delivery  to  the  carrier. 

§  1.  Commencement  of  carrier's  liability. 

The  liability  of  a  common  carrier  for  goods  received  by  it  be- 
gins as  soon  as  they  are  delivered  to  it,  its  agents  or  servants,  at 
the  place  appointed  or  provided  for  their  reception,  or  at  the  place 
where  the  carrier  is  accustomed  or  agrees  to  receive  them  when 
they  are  in  fit  and  proper  condition  and  ready  for  immediate  trans- 
portation.^    A  carrier's  liability  begins  when  it  receives  freight 

1.  London    &    L.    Fire    Ins.    Co.   v.  284,   if   the   shipper   captiously   with- 

Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  N.  Y.  200,  39  holds    shipping    directions,    the    com- 

N.   E.   79,   43   Am.   St.   Rep.   752,   61  pany  into  whose  possession  the  goods 

Am.  &  Enw.  R.  Cas.  225;   Central  of  have  come  is  only  liable  as  a  ware- 

Ga.  R.  Co.  V.  Sigma  Lumber  Co.,  170  houseman    during   the   period    of   the 

Ala.    627,   54  vSo.   205;    Southern    Ex-  withholding   of   such    directions. 

press   Co.  v.  Newby,   36   Ga.   635,   PI  Stock      shipments.— Where      cattle 

Am.  Dec.  783;   Central  of  Ga.  R.  Co.  have  been  placed  in  the  carrier's  pen 

T.   Butler    Marble   &    Granite   Co.,    8  for  immediate  shipment  over  its  raii- 

Ga.    App.    1,    68    S.    E.    775;    A.    P.  road,  and  part  of  them  have  actually 

Loveman  &  Co.  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  been    placed    on    the   cars,   the   cattle 

qq     Algt    ^   57   So.   817;    Fuller  are  in  the  cu'^tndy  of  the  carrier,  as 

T.  lUinoiB  Central  R.  Co.,  164  111  App.  a   carrier,   and   not   as   a   warehouse- 

(168) 


COMMENCEMENT   OF   CARRIERS   LIABILITY. 


16^ 


for  immediate  shipment.*     The  liability  of  a  common  carrier  at- 


man.     Gulf,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Trawick, 
80  Tex.  270,  15  S.  W.  568. 

A  statutory  provision  that  the 
tranapoitation  of  goods  by  a  com- 
mon carrier  shall  be  considered  as 
commenced  from  the  time  the  bill  of 
lading  is  signed,  does  not  preclude 
the  liability  from  commencing  be- 
fore, viz.  from  the  time  of  the  deliv- 
ery of  the  goods,  so  as  to  make  the 
carrier  liable  for  loss  when  no  bill 
is  issued.  East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co  v. 
Hall,  64  Tex.  615. 

When  goods  marked  with  the  name 
and  address  of  the  conEignee  are  de- 
livered to  and  received  by  a  common 
carrier,  it  is  equivalent  to  a  direc- 
tion to  tran-^port  and  deliver  the 
same  as  marked,  and  the  carrier  has 
the  right,  and  it  is  his  duty,  at  once 
to  forward  them  to  the  consignee  at 
their  destination  in  the  usual  course 
of  business,  and  the  carrier's  liability 
as  insurer  at  once  attaches,  and  until 
this  is  done  it  is  not  relieved  of  its 
responsibility  as  a  carrier.  Shelton 
v.  Merchants'  Dispatch  Transp.  Co., 
36  N.  Y.  Super  Ct.  527,  rev'd  59  N. 
Y.  258  on  the  ground  that  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case  established  a 
special  contract;  Witbeck  v.  Holland, 
45  N.  Y.  13;  White  v.  Goodrich 
Transp.  Co.,  46  Wis.  493,  21  Am. 
Ry.  Rep.  398;  O'Neill  v.  New  York 
Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Thomp.  &c.  (N. 
Y.)  399;  Id.  60  N.  Y.  138;  Gregory 
T.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  46  Mo.  App.  574. 

If  goods  are  detained  at  the  request 
of  the  consignor,  after  delivery  to  the 
carrier  for  transportation,  the  linbil- 
ity  of  the  carrier  during  such  deten- 
tion, is  that  of  a  warehousenmn  only. 
6t.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Montgomery, 
89  111.  336. 


A  nonsuit  is  properly  denied  where 
it  appears  that  a  shipper  delivers  a 
box  to  the  driver  of  a  local  transfer 
company,  prepaying  the  charges 
thereon  and  taking  a  receipt  therefor 
from  the  express  company,  which  re- 
ceipt he  subsequently  gave  to  the 
shipper,  at  which  time  the  box  while 
in  the  possession  of  the  express  com- 
pany had  been  burned.  Hill  v. 
Adams  Express  Co.,  77  N.  J.  Law, 
19,  71  Atl.  683. 

Drayage  company. — The  liability  of 
a  drayage  company  as  a  common  car- 
rier began  when  it  accepted  and  re- 
ceived goods  situated  in  a  car  on  a 
house  track  commonly  used  for  un- 
loading goods,  when  it  took  posses- 
sion of  the  car  and  began  actual  re- 
moval of  the  goods.  Arkadolphia 
Milling  Co.  v.  Smoker  Mercl.andise 
Co.,  100  Ark.  37,  139  S.  W.  680. 

To  make  a  railroad  company  liable 
as  a  common  carrier  or  warehouse- 
man for  baggage  lost,  it  must  have 
been  delivered  to  and  accepted  by 
the  carrier,  either  actually  or  con- 
structively. Williams  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,    155   N.    C.   260,   71   S.   E.    34G. 

The  liability  of  a  ferryman  as  a 
common  carrier  commences  when 
the  custody  and  control  of  the  goods 
have  been  turned  over  to  him;  there 
is  no  delivery  to  him  until  this  i» 
done.  Wyckoff  v.  Queens  Co.  Ferry 
Co.,  52  N.  Y.  32.  11  Am.  R<p.  650; 
White  v.  Winnisimmet  Co.,  61  Mass. 
(7  Cush.)  155.  Compare  Blakcley  t. 
Le  Due,  19  Minn.  187;  Miles  r. 
.Tamps,  1  MoCord  L.  (S.  C.)  157; 
Cohen  v.  Hume,  1  McCord  L.  (R.  C.) 
439;  Cook  v.  Gourdin,  2  N.tt  4  M- 
(F.  r.)  19. 
After  the  carrier  by  water  receipt! 


170  I'iiE  LAW  OF  CAiaUKKS. 

taclies  by  virtue  of  either  full  delivery  of  the  merchandise  to  bo 
transported  or  ueceptaneo  of  such  merchandise  by  the  carrier.' 
When  a  shipper  surrenders  the  entire  custody  of  his  goods  to  a 
common  carrier  for  transportation,  the  liability  of  the  carrier  at 
once  attaches.  The  liability  does  not  attach  until  the  goods  to  bo 
shipped  arc  unconditionally  delivered  by  the  shipper  and  accepted 
by  the  carrier.*  If  a  common  carrier  receives  goods  into  its  own 
warehouse  for  the  accommodation  of  itself  and  its  customers,  so 
that  the  deposit  there  is  a  mere  accessory  to  the  carriage  and  for 
the  purpose  of  facilitating  it,  in  other  words,  if  they  are  deposited 
for  the  purpose  of  being  carried  without  further  orders,  its  lia- 
bility as  a  carrier  begins  with  the  receipt  of  the  goods.^  But,  on 
the  contrary,  if  the  goods  when  so  deposited  are  not  ready  for 
immediate  transportation,  and  the  carrier  cannot  make  arrange- 
ments for  their  carriage  to  the  place  of  destination  until  some- 
thing further  is  done,  or  some  further  direction  is  given  or  com- 
munication made  concerning  them  by  the  owner,  or  consignor,  the 
deposit  must  be  considered  to  be  in  the  meantime  for  his  con- 
venience and  accommodation,  and  the  carrier  until  some  change 
takes  place  will  be  responsible  only  as  a  warehouseman.  The 
party  bringing  the  goods  must  first  do  whatever  is  essential  to 
enable  the  carrier  to  commence,  or  to  make  needful  preparations 
for  commencing,  the  service  required  of  it,  before  it  can  be  made 

for  merchandise,  it  ia  at  his  risk  as  immediate  shipment.     Pittsburg,  etc., 

much  if  on  board  the  ship  or  vessel.  R.   Co.  v.  American  Tobacco  Co.,   31 

Barrett  v.  Salter,  10  Rob.   (La.)  434;  Ky.   Law  Rep.   1013,   104   S.  W.  377. 

Greenwood    v.    Cooper,    10    La.    Ann.  It  does  not  depend  upon  the  issuance 

796.  of  a  bill  of   lading.     St.   Louis,  etc., 

2.  Garner  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  R.  Co.  v.  C.  C.  Burrow  &  Co.,  89  Ark. 

79  Ark.  353,  96  S.  W.  187,  116  Am.  178,  116  S.  W.  198;   Berry  v.  South- 

St.  Rep.  83;   Abbott  Gin  Co.  v.  Mis-  ern  R.  Co.,  122  N.  C.  1002,  30  S.  E. 

souri,  etc.,  R.   Co.  of  Texas,  57  Tex.  14. 

Civ.  App.  263,   122  S.  W.   284.     The  3.  Corning  &  Co.  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  R. 

liability    of    a    carrier    is    complete  Co.,  144  111.  App.  407. 

•when  it  receives  entire  control  of  the  4.  Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v   Powers, 

goods    for   immpdiate   transportation.  73  Neb.  816,  103  N.  W.  678. 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murphy,  60  5.  Blossom  v|  Griffin,  13  N.  Y.  569, 

Ark.  333,  30  S.  W.  419.     A  carrier's  67   Am.   Dec.   75;    Clarke  v.   Needles, 

liability  as  insurer  for  a  loss  of  goods  25  Pa.  St.    (1  Casey)    338;   Marshall 

begins   when   a   carrier   has    actually  v.  New  York   Cent.  R.   Co.,  45  Barb, 

received   the  goods   as   a  carrier  for  (N.  Y.)    502. 


COMMENCEMENT   OF   CARRIER'S    LIABIUTY.  I'j-^ 

liable  or  subjected  to  responsibility  in  that  capacity.  'Where  goods 
are  delivered  to  a  common  carrier  to  await  further  orders  from 
the  shipper  before  shipment,  the  carrier,  while  the  goods  are  so 
in  its  custody  is  liable  only  as  warehouseman.  A  carrier  is  re- 
sponsible, as  a  carrier,  only  when  goods  are  delivered  and  accepted 
by  it  for  immediate  transportation  in  the  usual  course  of  business.® 
When  a  consignor  of  goods  delivers  them  to  a  carrier,  relinquish- 
ing all  control  over  them,  the  carrier  becomes  immediately  liable 
as  a  common  carrier;  but  if  the  goods  are  merely  placed  in  the 
carrier's  depot  for  the  consignor's  convenience,  and  are  not  readv 
for  shipment  until  the  consignor  has  done  something  further  to 
them,  the  carrier  is  not  so  liable.^  The  carrier  is  liable,  as  a  com- 
mon carrier,  for  the  loss  of  goods  which  have  been  placed  in  its 
depot  or  warehouse  for  shipment  at  its  earliest  convenience,  and 
when  nothing  remains  for  the  owner  to  do  before  shipment.^  The 
relation  of  shipper  and  carrier  does  not  begin  between  the  owner 
of  goods  and  a  carrier,  though  the  former  may  have  delivered  the 
goods  to  the  latter,  if,  after  such  delivery,  anything  required, 
either  by  law  or  the  contract,  remains  to  be  done  by  the  shipper.' 
The  liability  of  a  carrier,  as  such,  for  goods  received  for  trans- 

6.  London    &    L.    Fire    Ins.    Co.    v.  ternational  Steamship  Co.,  170  Mass. 

Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  supra.;  O'Neill  v.  1G6,  48  N.  E.  1093,  64  Am.  St.  Rep. 

New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  N.  Y.  290;    Basmight   v.   Atlantic,   etc.,   R. 

138,  rev'g  3  Tliomp.  &c.   (N.  Y.)   399;  Co.,    Ill   N.    C.    592,    16   S.   E.    323; 

Rogers    v.    Wheeler,    52    N.    Y.    262;  Colorado  B.  R.  Co.  v.  Breniman,   23 

Wade   V.    Wheeler,   3   Lans.    (N.   Y.)  Colo,  App.  1,  125  Pac.  855. 

201,  aff'd  47  N.  Y.  658,  the  liability  7.  Stapleton    v.    Grand    Trunk    R. 

as  common  carrier  commences  on  the  Co.,  133  Mich.  187,  94  N.  W.  739,  10 

acceptance   of   such   order   for   trans-  Det.  Leg.  N.  133;  Judson  v.  Western 

portation;    St.   Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  R.  Corp.  86  Mass.   (4  Allen)    520,  81 

Knight,  122  U.  S.  79,  7  Sup.  Ct.  1132,  Am.  Dec.  718. 

30   L.   Ed.    1077,   30   Am.   &   Eng.   R.  8.  Grand    Tower    Mfg.    &    Transp. 

Caa.    88;    Michigan,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.  Co.   v.   Ullman,   89   111.   244. 

Shurtz,    7    Mich.    515;    Burrowes    v.  9.  Di,\on  v.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co., 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    85    Neb.    497,  110  Ga.  173,  35  S.  E.  369;  Bairibridge 

123  N.  W.  1028,  judg.  afT'd  on  rehear-  Grocery   Co.   v.   Atlantic    Coast    Lino 

ing  126  N.  W.  1084;   Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  8  Ga.  App.  677,  70  S.  E.  l.'->4; 

R.   Co.   V,   United    States,   39   Ct.   CI.  American   Lead    Pencil    Co.   v.   Nash- 

<U.    S.)    405;    Little    Rock,    etc.,    R.  ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   124  Tenn.  57,   134 

Co.   V.  Hunter,  42  Ark.  200,   18  Am.  S.  W.  613. 
&.  Eng.  R.   Cas.   527;    Murray   v.   In- 


172 


THE  LAW  OF  CARKIERS. 


portation,  does  not  commence  until  the  duty  to  transport  has  com- 
pletely arisen  by  the  delivery,  and  acceptance  of  the  goods  for 
immediate  transportation/"  and  until  that  time  it  docs  not  hold 
the  goods  in  the  capacity  of  a  common  carrier."  The  entire  weight 
of  the  responsibility  rigorously  imposed  by  law  upon  a  common 
carrier  falls  upon  it  contemporaneously  (co  mstanli)  with  a  com- 
plete delivery  of  the  goods  to  be  forwarded,  if  accepted,  with  or 
without  a  special  agreement  as  to  reward;  for  the  obligation  to 
carry  safely  on  delivery  carries  with  it  a  promise  to  keep  safely 
before  the  goods  are  put  in  itinere}^  To  render  a  common  carrier 
liable  for  loss  of  property,  it  must  be  established  that  the  property 
was  actually  delivered  to  it,  or  to  some  person  duly  authorized  to 
act  on  its  l3ehalf,  for  transportation.  The  responsibility  of  the 
carrier  does  not  commence  until  the  delivery  is  completed."  The 
goods  must  have  been  delivered  into  the  exclusive  control  of  the 
carrier,  and  accepted  by  the  latter  in  that  capacity  for  transporta- 
tion.^* The  liability  of  the  carrier  attaches  only  from  the  time 
of  the  acceptance  of  the  goods  by  it.^^  It  is  not  enough  that  the 
property  is  delivered  upon  the  premises  of  the  carrier,  unless  the 
delivery  is  accompanied  by  notice  to  the  proper  person.^®  The 
liability  of  a  common  carrier  attaches  as  soon  as  the  delivery  of 
the  goods  for  transportation  is  complete,  so  as  to  place  on  the 
carrier  the  exclusive  duty  of  seeing  after  their  safety."     Where 

10.  Barron  v.  Eldredge,  100  Mass.  supra;  Trevor  v.  U.  &  S.  R.  Co.,  7 
455,  Hill  (N.  Y.)  47;  Blanchard  v.  Isaacs, 

11.  Clara  Turner  Co.  v.  New  York,  3  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  388.  That  the  owner 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Conn.  71,  84  Atl.  298.  of   goods   has   loaded   them   in   a   car 

12.  London  &  L.  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  for  shipment,  though  the  carrier  has 
Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  supra.  placed  the  car  in  a  convenient  posi- 

13.  Grosvenor  v.  New  York  Cent.  tion  for  such  purpose,  will  not  make 
R.  Co.  39  N.  Y.  34,  5  Abb.  Prac.  the  carrier  an  insurer,  but  before 
(N.  S.)  345;  Trowbridge  v.  Chapin,  delivery  is  completid  the  owner  must 
23  Conn.  595;  Merriam  v.  Hartford,  relinquish  all  control  over  the  car, 
etc.  R.  Co.,  20  Conn.  354,  52  Am.  and  notice  that  it  was  ready  for  ship- 
Dec.   344.  ment  must  have  been  given.     Kansas 

14.  Truax  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  v.  Cox,  25  Okl.  774, 
Co.,  3  Houst.    (Del.)    233.  108  Pac.  380,  32  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  313. 

15.  Packard  v.  Getman,  6  Cow.  (N.  17.  London  &  L.  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Y_)    757.  Rome,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   supra;   Milne  v. 

16.  Grosvenor  v.  New  York  Cent.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  155  Mo.  App. 
R.    Co.,    supra;    Packard    ▼    Getman,  465,   135   S.   W.  85;   Ames  v.  Fargo, 


COMMENCEMENT   OF   CARRIER'S   LIABILITY.  173 

goods  are  accepted  for  shipment,  whether  intended  to  be  imme- 
diate or  remote,  the  placing  of  the  goods  upon  its  platform  rciulera 
a  carrier  responsible  for  any  damages  thereto  from  fire  originating 
within  its  right  of  way,  unless  released  from  liability  by  the 
shipper.^*  Where  a  railroad,  under  agreement  with  a  warehouse 
company,  places  a  car  on  a  side  track  to  be  loaded  for  immediate 
shipment,  the  railroad  to  pay  for  the  loading,  and  the  goods  are 
loaded  by  the  employes  of  the  warehouse,  duly  marked  as  to 
destination,  it  is  a  delivery  to  the  railroad  as  a  common  carrier, 
and  it  is  liable  to  the  owner  for  loss  of  the  goods  by  fire.^'  So 
where  a  railroad  company  maintains  a  side  track  adjacent  to  a 
wheat  elevator,  and  a  car  is  loaded  for  shipment,  and  a  bill  of 
lading  providing  that  the  carrier  shall  be  responsible  for  any  loss 
or  damage  is  issued  and  sent  to  the  elevator  company's  office,  the 
car  is  received  for  shipment  and  the  railroad  company  is  liable 
as  a  common  carrier  for  its  destruction  by  fire  on  the  side  track 
before  it  was  removed.^"  A  carrier's  common-law  liability  as  an 
insurer  of  freight  does  not  attach  until  the  freight  has  been  actu- 
ally or  constructively  delivered  to  and  accepted  by  it.'^ 

§  2.  Effect  of  delivery  and  acceptance  other  than  initiating  lia- 
bility of  carrier. 
As  has  been  already  shown,  the  liability  of  a  common  carrier 
attaches  by  virtue  of  either  full  delivery  of  the  merchandise  to  be 

114  App.  Div.    (N.Y.)    666,99  N.  Y.  19.  Central  of  Ga.  R.  Co.  v.  Bird, 
Supp.  994,  ordinarily  the  liability  of  10  Ga.  App.  423,  73  S.  E.  599. 
a    common    carrier    begins    when    the  20.  Cincinnati  Grain   Co.  v.  Louis- 
goods   are  delivered   to   it  for   trans-  ville  &  N.  R.   Co.,   146  Ky.   237,   143 
portation    and    it    assumes    dominion  S.  W.  374. 

over  them.  21.  W.    G.    Dunnington    &    Co.    ▼. 

18.  Griffin    v.   Atlantic   Coast   Line  Ijouisville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  153  Ky.  388, 

R.   Co.,   89   S.   C.   547,   72   S.   E.   463.  155  S.  W.  750.    A  railroad  company's 

Carrier    held    not    liable    for    cotton  liability  as  insurer  did  not  attach  as 

burned    in    another's    warehouse,    the  to   tobacco   loaded    in   cars   on   a   side 

cotton  never  having  been  actually  or  track,    where    the    loading    had     not 

constructively    delivered    to    the    car-  been  completed,  the  carrier  given  no- 

rier.     A.   P.   Loveman  &   Co.   v.   Ala-  tice  to  move  the  cars  or  any  bill   of 

bama,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Ala,   — ,    57   So.  lading  issued,  and  no  custom  to  treat 

Qlj  such  freight  aa  delivered  waa  shown. 

Id. 


174  THE  LAW  OF  CAIIRIKRS. 

transptirtiHl  or  bv  lu'coptauco  of  sncli  merchandise  bj  tho  cnrrior.^^ 
Pelivory  of  goods  to  a  carrier  raises  a  presumption  that  it  receives 
them  as  such,  and  puts  on  it  \\\o  burden  of  showing  that  it  received 
them  only  as  warehouseman.'"^  Common  carriers  may  be  carriers 
of  money  as  well  as  of  goods  if  such  carriage  is  sanctioned  by  the 
usage  of  trade ;  but  where  no  usage  is  shown,  the  receiving  of 
mouey  and  tlie  agreement  of  the  carrier  to  deliver  raises  the  pre- 
sumption that  such  is  its  customary  employment.^*  Whether  a 
shipper  compliotl  with  a  custom  of  carriers  requiring  shippers  de- 
siring a  car  to  be  forwarded  on  a  certain  date  to  deliver  the  ship- 
ment before  a  certain  hour  is  immaterial,  if  the  conditions  are 
waived  and  the  shipment  is  in  fact  accepted  by  the  carrier  for 
transportation  and  delivery.^^  A  common  carrier  must  accept 
freight  from  every  one  offering  the  same,  and  is  not  guilty  of  con- 
version in  accepting  freight  from  a  party  in  possession  thereof, 
unless  the  true  owner  intervenes  before  the  goods  are  delivered  and 
demands  them.^® 

§  3.  Acts  constituting  delivery  to  and  acceptance  by  carrier. 

To  complete  the  delivery  of  the  property  within  the  rules  laid 
down  in  the  authorities  it  is  essential  that  the  property  should  be 
placed  in  such  a  position  that  it  may  be  taken  care  of  by  the  agent 
or  person  having  charge  of  the  business  of  the  carrier,  and  under 
his  immediate  control.  It  must  be  accepted  and  received  by  the 
agent.^^     There  must  be  an  actual  delivery  of  the  goods  to  the 

22.  Corning  &  Co.  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  Where  goods  were  not  in  fact  de- 
E.  Co.,  144  III.  App.  407.  livered  to  the  carrier,  the  mere  fact 

23.  Berry  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  122  that  the  goods  were  receipted  for  by 
K.  C.  1002,  30  S.  E.  14.  the     carrier's     agent,     who     had     no 

24.  Choteau  v.  The  St.  Anthony,  knowledge  of  their  delivery,  except  a 
11  Mo.  226.  slip  signed  by  the  boatman,  will  not 

25.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  But-  create  liability  for  their  non-delivery. 
ler  Marble  &  Granite  Works,  8  Ga.  Tlie  Willis  D.  Sandhoval,  92  Fed.  286. 
App.  1,  68  S.  E.  775.  No   express   contract   being   shown 

26.  Robert  C.  White  Live  Stock  to  carry  to  such  place,  an  express 
Commission  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  company  is  not  liable  for  a  package 
Co.,  87  Mo.  App.  330.  of  treasury  notes,  left  at  its  office  to 

27.  GroKvenor  v.  New  York  Cen-  be  carried  to  a  place  to  which  it  is 
tral  R.  Co.,  39  N.  Y.  34,  5  Abb.  Pr.  not  a  common  carrier,  nor  for  the 
(N.  S.)  345.  conversion    of    the    notes    themselves. 


COMMENCEMENT   OF   CARRIER'S   LIABILITY. 


175 


carrier,  or  a  constructive  delivery,  with  notice  to  it  of  an  inten- 
tion thereby  to  place  them  in  its  care  and  custody.  ]\Ierely  plac- 
ing them  in  such  a  position  that  it  could  easily  take  them,  but 
without  calling  its  attention  to  them,  is  not  sufficient.^^  The  lia- 
bility of  the  common  carrier  is  fixed  by  accepting  the  property 
to  be  transported,  and  the  acceptance  is  complete  whenever  the 
property  comes  into  its  possession  with  its  assent.^^  The  prop- 
erty must  have  been  delivered  into  the  exclusive  control  of  the 
carrier,  and  accepted  by  the  latter  in  that  capacity  for  transporta- 
tion.^* There  is  no  delivery  and  acceptance  so  as  to  create  the  re- 
lation of  shipper  and  carrier  so  long  as  the  owner  retains  control 
of  the  goods ;  there  must  be  a  change  of  possession  from  the  ship- 
per to  the  carrier,  and  the  former  must  relinquish  all  custody 
and  control  of  the  property  for  the  time  being,  leaving  the  exclu- 
sive possession  in  the  carrier,  so  as  to  put  upon  the  carrier  the 
exclusive  duty  of  looking  after  the  safety  of  the  goods.^^  Where 
goods  are  delivered  to  and  accepted  by  a  carrier,  no  bill  of  lading 


Pitlock  V.   Wells,   Fargo  &   Co.,   109 
Mass.  452. 

28.  O'Bannon  v.  Southern  Express 
Co.,  51  Ala.  481;  Southwestern  R. 
Co.  V.  Webb,  48  Ala.  585. 

29.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Smy- 
ser,  38  111.  354,  87  Am.  Dec.  301; 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  McVeigh,  20 
CJratt.   (Va.)   264. 

30.  Truax  v.  Pliiladelphia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  3  Iloust   (Del.)   233. 

In  order  to  constitute  delivery  to 
a  carrier,  complete  control  of  the 
goods  must  be  given  to  it.  Gulf,  etc., 
Ry.  Co.  V  Lowery,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.) 
155  S.  W.  992. 

31.  London,  etc..  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  N.  Y.  200,  39 
N.  E.  79,  43  Am.  St.  Rep.  752,  61 
Am.  &  Enp.  R.  Cas.  225,  wherein  it 
•was  held  that  a  railroad  company 
to  which  hay  was  delivered  for  im- 
mediate shipment,  and  accepted  by  it, 
and  placed  in  its  freight  house  be- 
cause   it    had    no    cars    in    which    to 


place  it,  was  liable  for  its  loss  as  a 
common  carrier,  although  it  was  the 
shipper's  duty  to  load  it  upon  the 
cars;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Mc 
Fadden,  154  U.  S.  155,  14  Sup.  Ct. 
990,  38  L.  Ed.  994,  holding  that  a 
carrier  is  not  liable  on  a  bill  of 
lading  for  cotton  which  at  the  time 
of  the  signing  of  the  bill  remained 
in  possession  of  a  compress  company, 
as  agent  for  the  shipper  to  be  com- 
pressed for  the  shipper's  account,  and 
was  destroyed  by  fire  before  delivery 
to  the  carrier  had  been  consum- 
mated; Wilson  V.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  82  Ga.  336,  9  S.  E.  1070.  40 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  225,  holding  that 
delivery  for  carriage  involves  a  com- 
plete surrender  of  the  control  and 
possession  of  the  poods  to  the  car- 
rier; Frazier  v.  Kansas  City,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  48  Iowa  571;  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Foster,  104  Ind.  293, 
4  N.  E.  20,  54  Am.  Rep.  319. 


,-,>  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

or  prepajment  of  froif!;lit  is  necessary,  however,  in  the  absence  of 
law  or  notice  to  the  shipper  that  it  is  required  by  the  carrier's 
rules."  Cotton  delivered  to  a  compress  company,  which  is  the 
carrier's  agent  for  shipment  when  compressed,  and  the  bills  of 
lading  for  which  have  been  presented  to  the  carrier's  agent,  after 
the  cotton  has  been  checked  by  the  compress  company,  and  signa- 
ture thereto  refused  by  the  carrier's  agent  because  the  insurance 
was  insiifiiciont,  has  been  delivered  to  and  accepted  by  the  carrier, 
although  it  has  not  issued  the  bills  of  lading  therefor."  But  where 
cotton  is  still  in  the  possession  of  a  compress  company  at  its  sheds, 
and  the  carrier  has  never  assumed  possession  or  control  of  any 
cotton  until  it  was  placed  on  cars  of  the  compress  company,  al- 
though it  issued  bills  of  lading  in  exchange  for  the  receipts  of 
the  compress  company,  the  carrier  cannot  be  considered  as  having 
received  it  and  is  not  liable  as  a  common  carrier  f*  and  the  rule  is 
true  although  the  carrier  may  not  have  issued  bills  of  lading  for  the 
cotton.^  So,  where  cotton  was  loaded  on  a  car,  left  on  a  siding 
for  that  purpose  by  a  railroad  company,  at  a  place  where  it  had 
no  station  or  agent,  the  car  being  loaded  in  the  evening  after  the 
only  local  freight  train  for  the  day  had  passed,  and  there  would 
be  no  other  until  the  evening  of  the  next  day  f^  and  where  cotton 
was  placed  on  a  platform  near  its  track  which  it  did  not  own  but 
constantly  used,  the  cotton  not  having  been  received  or  receipted 
for  by  the  company  or  taken  under  its  control,^^  there  was  no  de- 
livery to  and  acceptance  by  the  railroad  company  so  as  to  make  it 

32.  Lord  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  105  Edwards  &  Co.   (Tex.  Civ.  App.)    121 

Me.  255,  74  Atl.  117,  where  a  shipper  S.  W.  570. 

left  gooda  for  transportation  at  the  34.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Corn- 
freight  depot  of  a  carrier,  delivering  mercial  Union  Ins.  Co.,  139  U.  S. 
the  same  to  a  freight  handler  appar-  223,  11  Sup.  Ct.  554,  34  L.  Ed.  154; 
ently  in  charge  and  accustomed  to  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Knight,  122 
receive  freight  in  the  absence  of  the  U.  S.  79,  7  Sup.  Ct.  1132,  30  L.  Ed. 
receiving  clerk,  the  goods  being  prop-  1077,  30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  88. 
erly  packed  and  tagged  with  the  con-  35.  Martin  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R, 
Big'nee's  name  and  destination,  and  Co.,  55  Ark.  510,  19  S.  W.  314,  56 
the  shipper  was  not  requested  to  pre-  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  112. 
pay  the  freight  and  supposed  noth-  36.  Tate  v.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78 
ing  further  would  be  required  pre-  Miss.  842,  29  So.  392,  84  Am.  St. 
lirainary   to   their   transportation.  Rep.   649. 

33.  Texas  Midland  R.  Co.  v.  H.  L.  37.  Brown  t.  Atlanta,  etc..  R.  Co., 


(JOMMENUEMEJNJT    OF    CARRIERS    LIABILITY.  177 

liable  for  the  value  of  the  cotton  destroyed  by  fire  under  such  cir- 
cumstances. Where  cotton  was  placed  on  a  platform  which  had 
been  built  by  a  railroad  for  cotton  for  shipment,  and,  according 
to  custom,  the  railroad's  agent  at  the  nearest  station  was  requested 
to  have  a  car  sent  for  the  cotton,  but  a  train  conductor  failed  to 
follow  his  instructions  so  that  no  car  was  sent,  there  was  no  re- 
lation of  carrier  and  shipper.^  Where  goods  designed  for  imme- 
diate shipment  are  placed  in  a  condition  to  be  carried,  in  the  usual 
place  of  loading,  in  accordance  with  the  custom  of  dealing  between 
the  carrier  and  the  shipper,  with  the  carrier's  knowledge  of  the 
fact  and  purpose,  or  at  the  place  of  loading  designated  by  the 
parties,  there  is  both  a  sufficient  delivery  to  and  acceptance  by  the 
carrier.^^  Where  a  shipper  had  loaded  and  sealed  cars  on  a  switch 
track  of  the  carrier  for  switching  cars  to  and  from  the  transfer 
tracks  of  other  lines,  and  notified  the  carrier's  agent  and  directed 
him  to  move  the  cars  out,  which  the  agent  agreed  to  do,  the  carrier 
having  adopted  the  custom  of  receiving  loaded  cars  on  its  switch- 
ing tracks,  there  was  a  sufficient  delivery  of  the  cars/"  If  goods 
are  delivered  to  a  carrier  and  received  by  it  for  shipment,  they 
may  be  transmitted  without  the  issuance  of  a  bill  of  lading,  and 
may  be  regarded  as  in  the  possession  of  the  carrier  from  the  time 
received,  though  there  was  no  instruction  nor  intention  that  the 
carrier  should  immediately  make  the  shipment."  A  deposit  of 
goods  in  a  carrier's  freight  depot,  with  an  agreement  that  they 
should  be  shipped,  is  sufficient  to  make  the  carrier  liable  for  their 
value  when  destroyed  by  fire  or  lost  in  transportation,  although  no 

19  S.  C.  39,   13   Am.  &  Eng.  R.   Caa.  although   it  ha.s   not  yet  given   a   bill 

479.  of  lading  therefor. 

38.  Anderson    v.    Mobile    A.    0.    R.  39.  Pittsburgh,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Ara- 

Co.,  —  Miss.  — ,  38  80.  661.     But  see  erican  Tobacco  Co.,  31  Ky.  Law  Rep. 

St.  LouiB,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin   (Tex.  1013,  104  S.  W.  377;  Pine  Biufl"  &,  A. 

Civ.  App.),  35  S.  W.  28,  holding  that  K.  Ry.  Co.  v.  McKcnzie,  75  Ark.  100, 

cotton  placed  for  shipment  on  a  plat-  86  S.  W.  834. 

form   kept  by  a  carrier  so  that  cot-  40.  Kansas   City  Southern   Ry.   Co. 

ton    to    be    shipped    from    that   point  v.   Ro8«brook-JoBey   Grain   Co.,    (Te.x. 

may    be   weigheid    and    placed    thereon  Civ.  App.)    114  S.  W.  436. 

preparatory    to    being    loaded    on    its  41.  Missouri,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      of 

cars   is   in   poftse<ision   of   the   carrier,  Texas    v.    Beard,    34    Tex.    Civ.    App. 


188,  78  S.  W.  253. 


12 


ITS 


THE  LAW   OF  CAKKIEKS. 


hliipping  bill  or  contract  in  writing  was  made."     But,  goods  de- 
livcM-od  to  a  common  carrier  by  a  cartman,  and  accepted  by  the 
agent  of  the  company  on  the  understanding  that  shipment  is  to  be 
dehiyed  until  one  of  the  articles  can  be  properly  crated,  are  held 
by  the  carrier  in  the  capacity  of  warehouseman,'*^     Where  a  rail- 
road company  furnished  to  a  shipper  a  baggage  car  to  be  used  in 
the  transportation  of  theatrical  goods,  which  was  to  be  loaded  by 
the  shipper  and  notice  given  to  the  company  when  loaded,  and 
part  of  the  goods  were  not  in  the  car  and  it  was  not  intended  to 
place  them  there  until  a  subsequent  day,  the  goods  were  not  com- 
pletely delivered  to  and  received  by  the  railroad  company  so  as 
to  impose  on  it  the  liability  of  a  common  carrier."    The  delivery 
at  and  reception  into  a  grain  elevator  of  a  shipper's  grain,  accom- 
panied with  notice  to  the  carrier  that  it  was  there  to  await  trans- 
portation, under  contract,  were  equivalent  to  delivery  to  and  recep- 
tion by  the  carrier  at  its  freight  house,  where  a  track  extended  into 
the  yard  of  the  grain  elevator  from  the  freight  house  and  the 
owners  of  the  elevator  received  and  stored  the  grain  at  the  shipper's 
expense  until  it  was  loaded  into  cars  which  the  carrier  from  time 
to  time  ran  into  the  yard  and  intrusted  the  o^vne^s  of  the  elevator 
to  load  with  the  shipper's  grain/^    By  agreement  between  a  ship- 
per and  a  carrier  delivery  of  cars  loaded  by  the  shipper  on  a  side 
track  to  the  carrier  may  be  understood  to  have  taken  place  when- 
ever the  carrier  removes  the  cars  from  the  side  track  and  places 
them  in  its  freight  trains  for  shipment,  but  the  shipper's  right 
to  insist  upon  the  carrier's  promptly  accepting  goods  tendered  to 
it  for  transportation  is  not  aifected  by  such  agreement,  nor  is  the 

42.  Meloche  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  855,  as  to  facts  constituting  delivery 
Co.,   116  Mich.   69,   74  N.  W.   301,  4      to  and  acceptance  by  a  carrier, 

Det.  Leg.  N.  1066,  10  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  45.  Tliayer  v,   Burchard,   99   Mass. 

Cas,  N,  S.  182;  Gull,  etc.,  R.  Co,,  v.  508. 

Compton,  —  Tex.  Civ.  App.  — ,  38  S.  The     fact     that     a     warehouseman 

W.  220,  weighed  grain   into  cars  which  were 

43.  Fisher  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  taken  to  the  docks,  thence  to  be  dis- 
Co.,  17  Ohio  C.  C.  491,  9  Ohio  C,  D.  charged  into  a  vessel,  and  that  each 
413.  car  was  tallied  by  the  mate,  did  not 

44.  Clara  Turner  Co.  v.  New  York,  constitute  a  delivery  of  the  grain  to 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Conn.  71,  84  Atl,  the  shipmaster.  Glass  v.  Goldsmith, 
298.     See  Colorado  &   S.  Ry.   Co,  v.  22  Wis,  4S8. 

Breniman,  22  Colo.  App.  1,  125  Pac. 


COAIMENCEMENT   OF   CARRIER'S   LIABLLITY.  ^jy 

carrier's  liability  for  its  own  negligence  limited  thereby."  An 
agreement  by  an  agent  of  a  carrier  to  have  goods  forwarded  to 
their  proper  destination,  from  a  point  on  a  connecting  line  to  which 
they  were  carried  through  the  mistake  of  the  shipper  in  address- 
ing them,  makes  such  carrier  merely  a  gratuitous  bailee  of  the 
goods/^  Delivery  to  the  carrier  at  the  point  of  shipment  is  essen- 
tial to  create  a  contract  by  the  carrier  to  carry  and  deliver.** 
Where  a  railroad  station  agent  without  authority  to  receive  loose 
hay  for  transportation  permitted  a  shipper  to  load  hay  into  a  car, 
and  at  once  telegraphed  to  headquarters  for  instructions,  aifd  he 
was  directed  to  refuse  to  receive  the  hay  and  he  so  at  once  in- 
formed the  shipper,  the  carrier  did  not  receive  the  hay  for  ship- 
ment." 

§  4.  Constructive  delivery. — Custom  and  usage. 

In  order  to  charge  a  common  carrier  with  the  loss  of  property, 
it  is  necessary  that  it  should  be  delivered  to  it  or  its  agent  for 
transportation;  but  such  delivery  may  be  either  actual  or  con- 
structive.^'^  The  deposit  of  goods  for  shipment  at  a  particular 
place,  in  pursuance  of  a  custom  or  usage  adopted  or  sanctioned 
by  the  carrier  or  its  agent,^^  or  at  a  place  where,  by  the  constant 
practice  and  usage  of  the  carrier,  it  receives  property  for  trans- 

46.  Bainbridge  Grocery  Co.  v.  At-  received  and  receipted  for  the  pack- 
lantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.,  8  Ga.  App.  age  at  J.,  and  shipped  it  to  S, 
677,  70  S.  E.  154.  See  also  Home-  where  the  agent  embezzled  it,  the 
Andrews  Commission  Co.  v.  Georgia  money  sent  was  constructively  in  tiie 
R.  Co.,  136  Ga.  116,  70  S.  E.  879.  possession    of    the    express    company, 

47.  Treleven  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  and  could  be  recovered  from  it  by  tho 
Co.,  89  Wis.  598,  62  N.  W.  533.  bank.      Jasper   Trust    Co.   v.   Kansas 

43.  Marcus    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    Ry.  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Ala.  416,  14  So. 

Co.,  lf.7  111.  App.  638.  546,    42   Am.    St.   Rep.    75;    Southorn 

49.  Tilley  v.  Norfolk  &  W.  Ry.  Co.,  Express  Co.  v.  Jasper  Trust  Co.,  Id. 
—  N.  C.  — ,  77  S.  E.  994.  51.  Montgomery,     etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

50.  Merriam  v.  Hartford  &  N.  H.  Kolb,  73  Ala.  396,  49  Am.  Rep.  54. 
R.  Co.,  20  Conn.  354,  52  Am.  Dec.  although  no  re<'eipt  is  given  by  tho 
344;  Bail  v.  New  Jersey  Steamboat  agent  to  the  shipper,  and  such  usage 
Co.,  1  Daly   (N.  Y.)   491.  or   custom   is  contrary  to   the   estab- 

Where  the  agent  of  an  express  com-  lished     regulations     of     the     carrier, 

pany  at  S.  induced   a  bank   at  J.,  by  known   to  the  shipper,  and   no  notien 

fraud,   to   send    mnney   to   a   fictitious  thereof   is   traced   to  the  Huporinlc-nd- 

firm  at  S.,  and   the  express  company  cnt   or   managing   agent   of   the   cur- 


ISO 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


portation,"  or  at  its  usual  place  for  receiving  freight  preparatory 
to  sliipmcut,  aud  under  an  agreement  previously  made  for  trans- 
portation of  the  same,"  may  amount  to  constructive  delivery  to  the 
carrier.     If  a  carrier  agree  that  property  intended  for  transporta- 
tion by  it  may  be  deposited  at  a  particular  place,  without  express 
notice  to  it,  such  deposit,  merely,  would  amount  to  constructive 
notice,   and  a  sufficient  delivery."     Where,   in  accordance  with 
usage,  a  cotton  compress  company's  receipt  is  delivered  by  the 
owner  to  the  carrier,  and  a  bill  of  lading  issued  by  the  latter,  the 
liability  of  the  carrier  to  the  o\vner  begins,  although  the  cotton  is 
not  yet  actually  delivered  to  the  carrier.*^    But  the  mere  delivery 
by  the  shipper  to  the  carrier  of  warehouse  receipts,  together  with 
an  order  on  the  warehouseman  for  delivery  of  the  goods,  to  a 
common  carrier,  is  not  a  constructive  delivery  of  the  goods  to  the 
carrier,  so  as  to  render  it  liable  in  case  the  goods  are  burned  in 
the  warehouse  before  it  can  remove  the  same.^^     Where,  in  pur- 
suance of  the  custom  of  a  carrier  to  move  cars  loaded  by  a  shipper 
as  soon  as  a  blank  receipt  is  made  out  by  the  shipper  and  signed 
by  the  conductor,  a  shipper  loaded  cotton  on  the  carrier's  car,  made 
out  such  receipt,  notified  the  carrier  that  the  goods  were  ready  for 
shipment  and  requested  immediate  removal,  the  delivery  to  th<= 
carrier  was  complete."     A  carrier  may,  by  virtue  of  a  custom 
acquiesced  in  or  sanctioned  by  it  or  by  its  course  of  dealing,  be 
deemed  to  have  been  constructively  in  possession  of  goods  placed 

rler.  Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mar-  344,  and  such  an  agreement  may  be 
tin,  12  Tex.  Civ.  App.  464,  35  S.  W.  shown  by  proof  of  a  constant  prac- 
21;  Barter  v.  Wheeler,  49  N.  H.  9,  6  tice  and  usage  of  the  carrier  to  re- 
Am.  Rep.  434.  ceive   property    left    for    transporta- 

52.  Witzler  v.  Collins,  70  Me.  290,  tion  at  such  place,  without  any  spe- 
35  Am.  Rep.  327.  cial  notice  of  such  deposit. 

53.  Bowie  v.  Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Co.,  55.  Deming  v.  Merchants'  Cotton- 
1  McArthur  (D.  C.)  94;  Evansville,  Press,  etc.,  Co.,  90  Tenn.  (16 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Keith,  8  Ind.  App.  57,  Pickle)  306,  17  S.  W.  «9,  13  L.  R.  A. 
35  N.  E.  296;  Meyer  v.  Vicksburg,  18;  Arthur  v.  Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co., 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  La  Ann,  639,  6  So.  204  U.  S.  505,  27  Sup.  Ct.  338,  51 
218,  17  Am.  St.  Rep.  408,  where  the  L.  Ed.  590. 

carrier's    agent   waa    notified    of    the  56.  Stewart  v.  Gracy,  93  Tenn.  314, 

deposit.  27  S.  W.  664. 

54.  ilerriam  v.  Hartford  A  N.  H.  57.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mur- 
R.    Co.,    20    Conn.    354.    52    Am.    Dec.  phy,  60  Ark.  333,  30  S.  W.  419. 


COMMENCEMENT    OF   CARRIERS    LIABIUTY.  ig^ 

at  a  point  at  which  it  has  been  in  the  habit  of  receiving  them  or 
at  which,  by  its  course  of  conduct,  it  has  led  the  shipper  to  be- 
lieve that  it  would  receive  them.^ 

§  5.  Question  of  law  and  fact. — Question  for  jury. 

Where  the  facts  are  all  admitted,  the  question  whether  or  not 
the  goods  were  actually  delivered  to  a  common  carrier  for  trans- 
portation so  as  to  fix  his  responsibility  is  one  purely  of  law  f^  but 
where  the  evidence  is  conflicting,  the  question  is  one  of  fact  to 
be  determined  by  the  jury  under  appropriate  charges  by  the 
court. ^°  It  has  also  been  held  to  be  a  mixed  question  of  law  and 
fact,  usually  proven  by  showing  that  the  freight  was  sent  to  the- 
place  where  it  is  the  habit  of  the  carrier  to  receive  it,  accompanied 
with  notice  to  it  that  it  is  there  for  transportation."  The  ques- 
tion of  a  carrier's  liability  for  an  error  in  the  shipment  of  goods 
by  which  they  were  sent  to  the  wrong  destination  is  one  of  law.^^ 

§  6.  Acceptance  may  be  implied  from  proper  tender. 

It  is  the  duty  of  a  common  carrier  to  accept  for  transportation 
all  goods  tendered  to  it  for  shipment  upon  a  compliance  by  the 
shipper  with  all  reasonable  regulations,  the  prepayment  of  freight 
charges,  if  demanded,  etc.,  as  we  have  already  shown.*^  An  ac- 
ceptance will,  therefore,  be  implied  upon  proof  of  a  proper  tender 
of  the  goods,  as,  for  example,  where  the  carrier  receives  in  its 
warehouse  for  transportation  goods  which  are  ready  for  imme- 
diate carriage,  and  it  detains  the  goods  in  its  warehouse  for  its 
own  convenience ;"  where  the  goods  have  been  placed  in  its  depot 

58.  W.    G.    Dunnington    &    Co.    v.  also,    Great    Western    Despatch,    etc., 

Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  153  Ky.  388,  Line  v.  Glenny,  41  Ohio  St.  166. 

155  S    W.  750.  61.  Bowie  v.  Baltimore  &.  0.  R.  Co., 

69.  Gass  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  MacArthur   (D.  C),  609. 

99   Mass.   220,  9G  Am.   Dec.   742.  62.  Richer  v.   Fargo,   77   App.   Div. 

60.  Southwestern   Co.   v.   Webb,   43  (N.  Y.)   550,  78  N.  Y.  Siipp.  1007. 

Ala.    585;    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.  63.  See  Duty  to  receive  and  carry, 

Hodde,  42  Tex.  467;   and  it  is  error  §  2.  chap.  3,  ante. 

for   the   court,    in   charging  the   jury,  G4.  Moses    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.   Co., 

to  call  attention  to  certain  testimony  24  N.  11.    (4  Post.)    71,  55  Am.   Dec. 

not  disputfcd  and   say   that  the  facte  222;    Nichols    v.    Smith,    115    Mass. 

stated    in    it   prove   a   delivery.      See  332;   Birtcr  v.   WlK-ehr,  49  N.  H.  9, 

6  Am.  Rep.  434. 


ls;o  TUE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

or  warehouse  for  shipment  at  its  earliest  convenience,  and  when 
nothing  remains  for  the  owners  to  do  before  shipment;*''  wlierc  the 
carrier  oilers  to  comply  with  a  request  for  cars  for  the  shipment 
of  goods,  and  the  owner  of  the  goods  places  them  at  the  usual  place 
of  loading  goods  at  the  carrier's  station;''''  where  goods  have  been 
delivered  on  the  platform  of  a  carrier's  depot,  which  is  its  usual 
place  for  receiving  freight  preparatory  for  shipment,  under  an 
agreement  previously  made  for  transportation;"  where  goods  are 
deposited  in  cars  left  on  a  switch  by  the  carrier  for  the  purpose  of 
being  loaded,  the  cars  being  under  the  exclusive  control  of  the 
carrier.'*^  But  such  tender  or  deposit  of  goods  for  shipment  must 
have  been  at  a  time  when  and  place  where  the  carrier  is  accus- 
tomed to  receive  freight  for  transportation,  and  a  tender  or  deposit 
elsewhere,  for  example,  placing  them  where  the  carrier  might 
easily  have  taken  them  in  charge,  is  not  a  sufficient  delivery  to 
charge  the  carrier  with  responsibility  for  their  safety  other  than 
as  a  warehouseman,  if  the  carrier  did  not  know  it  was  intended 
that  it  should  receive  and  ship  them.  There  must  have  been  an 
actual  delivery  of  the  goods  to  it  or  a  constructive  delivery,  with 
notice  of  intention  thereby  to  place  them  in  its  care  and  custody. 
If  it  refuses  to  accept  the  goods  when  tendered  at  a  time  and  place 
other  than  where  it  is  accustomed  to  receive  freight,  no  liability 
of  any  kind  will  be  incurred.®* 

65.  Grand  Tower  Mfg.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  treated  03  having  been  made  to  tlie 
Ullman,  89  111.  244.  company    at    such    depot.      Dixon    v. 

66.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central  of  Georgia  Ry.  Co.,  110  Ga. 
Keith,  8  Ind.  App.  57,  35  N.  E.  296.  173,  35  S.  E.  369. 

67.  Bowie  v  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  69.  O'Bannon  v.  Southern  Express 
Co.,  1  McArthur   (D.  C),  94.  Co.,   51   Ala.   481;    Houston,   etc.,    R. 

68.  Illinoia  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Smyser,  Co.  v.  Ilodde,  42  Tex.  467;  Lovett  v. 
38  111.  254,  87  Am.  Dec.  301.  Hobbs,  2  Shows.  127;  Leigh  v.  Smith, 

Where  goods  to  be  shipped  are  sit-  1  C.  &  P.  640,  11  E.  C.  L.  507;  Sel- 
uated  upon  a  spur  track  of  a  rail-  way  v.  Holloway,  1  Ld.  Raym.  48; 
road  company,  and  the  owner  has  no  Buckman  v.  I^evi,  3  Campb.  414, 
track  scales,  thus  rendering  it  neces-  wherein  the  deposit  of  goods  in  the 
eary  to  move  the  loaded  cars  to  the  yard  of  an  inn  from  which  the  car- 
company's  depot  for  the  purpose  of  rier  started  was  held  not  to  be  a 
weighing  the  same,  so  as  to  a'^ortain  delivery. 

the  proper  amount  of  freight  charges,  A     liability     will     attach     if     the 

the    delivery    of    such    cars    will    be  tender     or     deposit    at    an    unaccua- 


COMMENCEMENT   OF   CAERIER'S   LIABILITY. 


183 


§  7.  Deposit  of  goods  elsewhere  than  at  regular  office  or  depot. 

The  deposit  of  goods  in  the  vicinity  of  the  depot  or  regular 
station  of  the  carrier,  or  along  or  near  the  roadbed  of  the  railway 
company,  wayside  deposits  made  to  save  the  trouble  of  hauling 
to  a  regular  station,  or  deposits  anywhere  except  at  the  regular 
offices,  stations,  depots,  or  freighting  or  shipping  points,  or  other 
places  fixed  by  the  carrier  for  the  reception  of  freight,  are  at  the 
risk  of  the  owners,  consignors,  or  shippers,  and  do  not  constitute 
such  a  delivery  as  will  render  the  carrier  liable  for  the  safety  of 
the  goods  while  there  and  before  being  received  into  the  actual 
custody  and  control  of  the  carrier.™     But  custom  or  usage  may 


tomed  place  was  made  in  pursuance 
of  an  agreement  with  the  carrier. 
Bowie  V,  Baltimore  &  O.  R.  Co.,  1 
McArthur    (D.   C),   94. 

The  carrier  also  becomes  responsi- 
ble, if  it  consents  to  receive  goods 
during  a  severe  storm,  which  causes 
their  loss,  it  being  for  the  carrier  to 
determine  whether  the  goods  could 
be  safely  received  during  the  peril  of 
a  storm.  New  Brunswick  Steamboat, 
etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v.  Tiers,  24  N.  J. 
Law   (4  Zab.)    697,  64  Am.  Dec.  394. 

As  to  what  is  a  "  regular  depot  or 
station,"  within  the  meaning  of  a 
statute  imposing  a  penalty  on  rail- 
roads for  refusing  to  accept  freight 
when  tendered  there,  see  Land  v.  Wil- 
mington, etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  N.  C.  48,  10 
S.  E.  80,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  18. 

70.  Ala. — O'Bannon  v.  Southern 
Express  Co.,  51  Ala.  481;  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Echols,  97  Ala.  556,  12 
So.  304,  where  cotton  was  left  on  a 
station  platform  over  night  in  viola- 
tion of  the  rules  of  the  com[)any,  the 
latter  was  held  not  liable. 

Del. — Truax  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  3  Houst.  (Del.)  233,  placing 
of  fruit  by  its  owner  in  a  storehouse, 
belonging  to  a  railroad  company  at  a 
station,    by    permission    of    the    com- 


pany, for  the  shipper's  own  conven- 
ience, or  placing  it  on  the  ground 
near  the  station  without  its  being 
taken  in  charge  by  the  company's 
agent,  unless  placed  there  by  his  di- 
rection, is  not  a  suiBcient  delivery. 

Ga. — Wilson  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  82  Ga.  386,  9  S.  E.  1076,  40  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  25. 

loxoa. — Frazier  v.  Kansas  City, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Iowa  571. 

A^.  Y. — Spade  v.  Hudson  River  R. 
Co.,  16  Barb.    (N.  Y.)    383. 

iV.  C. — Wells  V.  Wilmington,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  51  N.  C.  (6  Jones  L.)  47,  73 
Am.  Dec.  556. 

S.  C. — Brown  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  Air 
Line  R.  Co.,  19  S.  C.  39,  13  Am.  <fc 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  479. 

Tew. — Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hodde,  42  Tex.  467;  Fort  Worth,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Riley  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  1 
S.  W.  446,  27  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  49, 
placing  cattle  in  the  yards  of  a  rail- 
road company,  under  permi'^sion  of 
the  station  agent,  where  they  are  not 
received  for  shipment  and  no  bill  of 
lading  is  given,  does  not  constitute  a 
delivery;  Yoakum  v.  Dryden  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  26  S.  W.  312,  loading 
goods  on  a  ear  standing  on  a  side 
track  at  the  carrier's  depot,  without 


Ib-k 


TUK  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


have  establislied  a  constructive  delivery  which  will  bind  the  carrier, 
as  where  proof  is  made  of  a  constant  and  habitual  practice  and 
usage  of  a  carrier  to  accept  goods  for  shipment  when  deposited 
at  a  particuhir  place,  without  express  notice  to  the  carrier  of  such 
deposit-  This  is  held  to  be  sufficient  to  show  a  public  oifer  by 
the  carrier  to  receive  in  that  way  and  to  constitute  an  agreement 
between  the  parties  by  which  the  goods,  when  so  deposited,  shall 
be  considered  as  delivered  to  the  carrier  without  further  notice." 
So  a  special  place  for  receipt  of  freight  may  be  fixed  by  custom 
and  a  tender  of  delivery  there  is  sufficient  to  charge  the  carrier 
with  liability.'*  But  actual  notice  of  the  deposit  of  goods  for  ship- 
ment at  such  places  must  be  given  to  the  carrier,  except  where 
there  is  an  agreement  or  usage  by  which  goods  deposited  at  a  par- 
ticular place  are  to  be  taken  charge  of  by  the  carrier  without  any 
special  notice  of  such  deposit."     LTpou  a  proper  delivery  and  ac- 


the  knowledge  of  ite  agent,  and  when 
the  agent  on  being  informed  of  it,  de- 
clined to  ship  the  goods,  does  not  con- 
stitute a  delivery  to  the  carrier,  there 
being  no  custom  under  which  such 
loading  constituted  a  delivery. 

A  deposit  a.t  a  place  on  the  line  of 
a  railroad  where  there  is  a  switch, 
but  neither  agent,  station,  nor  plat- 
form, and  where  shipments  are  made 
only  by  loading  directly  upon  the 
cars,  and  where  freight  is  delivered 
when  the  parties  are  ready  to  re- 
ceive it,  is  not  a  depot  or  station,  and 
a  deposit  near  such  switch  does  not 
constitute  a  delivery.  Kansas  City, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Lilly,  (Miss.)  8  So. 
644,  45  Am.  A  Eng.  R.  Caa.  379; 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flanagan, 
113  Ind.  488,  3  Am,  St.  Rep.  674. 

Private  switch. — A  common  carrier 
cannot  be  required  to  receive  freight 
on  or  along  a  private  switch.  Bed- 
ford-Bowling Green  Stone  Co.  v. 
Oman,  134  Fed.  441,  affd.  Oman  v. 
Bedford-Bowling  Green  Stone  Co.,  134 
Fed.  64,  67  C.  C.  A.  190. 


71.  Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t. 
Kolb,  73  Ala.  396,  49  Am.  Rep.  54,  18 
Am.  &  Eng.  R,  Cas.  512;  Merriam  v. 
Hartford  &  N.  H.  R.  Co.,  20  Conn. 
354,  52  Am.  Dec.  344;  Meyer  T. 
Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  La.  Ann. 
639,  6  So.  218,  17  Am.  St.  Rep.  408; 
Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin, 
12  Tex.  Civ.  App.  464,  35  S.  W.  21; 
(in  the  two  cases  last  cited  the  de- 
posit of  cotton  on  a  railway  platform 
was  held  a  delivery)  ;  Converse  v. 
Norwich,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  33  Conn. 
166;  Green  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
38  Iowa  100,  41  Iowa  410;  Evans- 
ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keith,  8  Ind.  App. 
57,  35  N.  E.  296. 

72.  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rae,  18 
111.  (8  Peck),  488.  68  Am.  Dec.  574. 
But  usage  or  custom  may  be  limited, 
and  a  custom  as  to  the  delivery  of  a 
trunk  as  baggage  will  not  extend  to 
its  delivery  as  freight.  Wright  ▼. 
Caldwell,  3  Mich.  51. 

73.  Grosvenor  v.  New  York  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  39  N.  Y.  34;  Packard  v.  Get- 
man,   6   Cow.    (N.   Y.)    758,    16   Am. 


COMMENCEMENT    OF   CARRIERS    LIABILITY. 


185 


ceptance  of  goods  the  common  law  liability  of  a  common  carrier 
immediately  attaches  and  the  carrier  is  liable  to  the  same  extent 
as  if  the  goods  were  in  transit,  unless  its  liability  has  been  modi- 
fied, limited,  or  restricted  by  special  contract  or  agreement  witli 
the  shipper  or  owner  of  the  goods/* 

§  8.  Delivery  to  agent  of  carrier. — Authority  of  agent  to  receive 
goods. 
A  delivery  of  goods  for  shipment  to  an  agent  of  the  carrier 
or  a  person  duly  authorized  to  act  in  its  behalf,''*  or  who  is  clothed 
with  apparent  authority  and  has  been  accustomed  to  receive  goods 
tendered  for  transportation,^^  is  a  sufficient  delivery  to  bind  the 


Dec.  475,  4  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  615; 
Salinger  v.  Simmons,  57  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  513;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  ▼. 
Smyser,  38  111.  354,  87  Am.  Dec.  301; 
Buckman  v.  Levi,  3  Campb.  414;  Mer- 
riam  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 
Conn.  354,  52  Am.  Dec.  344;  Mont- 
gomery, etc.,R.  Co.  V.  Kolb,  73  Ala. 
396,  49  Am.  Rep.  54,  18  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  512;  Converse  v.  Norwich, 
etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  33  Conn.  166  (the 
last  two  cases  involved  delivery  as 
between    connecting  carriers). 

74.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bar- 
rett, 36  Ohio  St.  448,  3  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  259;  Grosvenor  v.  New  York 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  39  N.  Y.  34;  Gioason 
V.  Goodrich  Transp.  Co.,  32  Wis.  85, 
14  Am.  Rep.  716;  Ford  v.  Mitchell, 
21  Ind.  54;  Trowbridge  v.  Chapin,  23 
Conn.  595. 

75.  Dak. — Waldron  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  1  Dak.  336. 

Del. — Truax  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  3  Houst.    (Del.)    233. 

lotca. — Cobb  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.,   38   Iowa,   601. 

Jfaas.— Nichols  v.  Smith,  115  Mass. 
832. 

Uo^ — Milne  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Oo., 


155  Mo.  App.  465,  135  S.  W.  35; 
Minter  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  41  Mo.  508. 
97  Am.  Dec.  288. 

y.  F.— Mayall  v.  Boston  &  M.  R. 
Co.,  19  N.  H.  122,  49  Am.  Dec.  149. 

N.  T. — Grosvenor  v.  New  York 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  39  N.  Y.  34,  5  Abb.  Prac. 
(N.  S.)  345;  Rogers  v.  Wheeler,  52 
N.  Y.  262,  4  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  411,  affg. 
6  Lans.  420. 

N.  C— Harrell  v.  Wilmington  4;  W. 
R.  Co.,  106  N.  C.  258,  11  S.  E.  286, 
42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  421. 

Wis. — Gleason  v.  Goodrich  Transp. 
Co.,  32  Wis.  85,  14  Am.  Rep.  716. 

Eng. — Winkfield  v.  Packingt^n,  2 
C.  &  P.  599,  12  E.  C.  L.  281;  Giles  v. 
TaflF  Vale  R.  Co.,  3  El.  &  Bl.  823.  75 
E.  C.  L.  823. 

76.  Me. — Lord  v.  Maine  Central  R. 
Co.,  105  Me.  255,  74  Atl.  117,  a 
freight  handler  apparently  in  charge 
and  accustomed  to  receive  freight  in 
the  absence  of  the  receiving  clerk. 

Mass. — Phillips  v.  Earle,  35  Maas. 
(8  Pick.)  182,  the  agent  of  a  atajpn 
company,  although  the  delivery  is 
made  to  him  at  a  place  other  than 
the  regular  oflTicc  of  the  company,  by 
hJH  direetion. 


1S6 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


•carrior  and  roiidor  it  liable  as  a  common  carrier.  A  delivery 
may  also  be  siitHciont  when  made  to  an  employe  in  pursuance 
of  some  special  contract  or  usagc.'^  But  a  delivery  to  a  person 
working  around  tlie  freight  house  of  a  railroad  company;^*  to 
the  driver  of  a  stage  coach  who  promised  to  deliver  it  to  the 
next  stage  agent;'*  to  the  ticket  master  of  a  passenger  train  who 
had  no  authority  to  receive  freight;^"  to  a  waggoner  to  carry  for 
his  own  gain,  and  not  for  the  profit  of  the  master ;^^  to  tlio  driver 
of  a  wagon  unauthorized  to  receive  goods  to  haul;^^  to  the  deck 


A^.  ff.— Bean  v.  Sturtevant,  8  N.  H. 
146,  28  Am.  Dec.  3S9,  driver  of  stage 
coach. 

.V.  y.— Witbixik  V.  Schuyler,  44 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  469,  the  captain  of  a 
steamboat,  although  there  may  have 
been  a  freight  agent  of  the  boat  in 
the  same  town,  where  it  appears  that 
the  consignor  did  not  know  of  the 
agent;  Coyle  v.  Western  R.  Corp.,  47 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  152,  employes  of  a  rail- 
road company,  when  the  receiving 
clerk  is  present  and  directs  disposi- 
tion of  the  goods.  Lewis  v.  Van 
Horn,  24  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  765,  53 
N.  Y.  Supp.  546,  expressman  in 
charge  of  express  wagon  beaiing  name 
of  carrier  and  which  called  at  plain- 
tiff's place  every  night  for  goods  to 
be  delivered.  See  also,  Abrams  v. 
Piatt,  52  N.  Y.  Supp.  153,  23  Misc. 
Rep.   (N.  Y.)   637. 

8.  C. — McClure  v.  Richardson,  1 
Rice   (S.  C.)   215,  33  Am.  Dec.  in,"). 

Tex. — Pacific  Express  Co.  v.  Black, 
8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  363,  27  S.  W.  830, 
a  person  in  charge  of  the  depot  of  a 
railroad  company,  for  the  express 
company. 

yt. — Landon  v.  Proctor,  39  Vt.  78. 

W.  Va. — Qunrripr  v.  Baltimore, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  20  W.  Va.  424,  18  Am. 
ft  Eng.  R.  Cas.  536,  a  porter  at  a 
railwav  station. 


Eng, — Pickford  v.  Grand  Junction 
R.  Co.,  12  M.  &  W.  766;  Wilson  v. 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  L.  T.  223,  of- 
ficials of  a  railroad  company  at  its 
station;  Cobban  v.  Downe,  5  Esp.  N. 
P.  41,  the  mate  of  a  ship;  McCourt 
v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Ir.  R.  C.  L. 
107;   Machu  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 

2  Exch.  415,  17  L.  J.  Exch.  271,  a  per- 
son accustomed  to  book  for  the  com 
pany;  Davey  v.  Mason,  41  E.  C.  L. 
30;  Hart  v.  Baxendale,  6  Exch.  769, 
draymen  of  a  railroad  company  col- 
lecting goods  and  packages  at  the 
houses  of  consignors. 

77.  Trowbridge  v.  Chapin,  23  Conn. 
595. 

78.  Butler  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co., 

3  E.  D.  Sm.  (N.  Y.)  571;  Young  v. 
Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  1  Manitoba  L. 
Rep.  205. 

79.  Fisher  v.  Geddes,  13  La.  Ann. 
14;  Blanchard  v.  Isaacs,  3  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)    388. 

80.  Porter  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co., 
41  Iowa  358;  Elkins  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  23  N.  H.   (3  Post.)   275. 

81.  Butler  v.  Basing,  2  C.  &  P.  613, 
12  E.  C.  L.  287;  Williams  v.  Crans- 
ton, 2  Stark,  82,  3  E.  C.  L.  326. 

82.  Jenkins  v.  Picket,  17  Ttnn.  (9 
Yerg.)   480. 


COMMENCEMENT   OF   CARRIER'S   LIABIUTY.  137 

hands  of  a  steamboat,  unless  it  is  shown  that  thej  are  authorized 
to  receive  freight,  or  that  the  same  is  delivered  to  them  in  pur- 
suance of  some  special  contract  or  usage,^^  is  not  a  sufficient  de- 
livery to  render  the  carrier  liable  as  a  common  carrier  for  the 
loss  of  the  goods.  A  carrier  is  liable  for  the  negligence  of  his 
servants  or  agents  in  taking  goods  on  board  his  vessel  in  his  ab- 
sence, although  he  may  have  specifically  directed  them  not  to 
receive  goods,  it  appearing  that  the  shipper  had  no  notice  of  such 
directions.^*  Where  the  carrier  sends  an  agent  to  receive  the 
goods,  instructions  given  to  him  by  the  shipper  form  a  part  of 
the  contract  of  affreightment.^  The  carrier  is  responsible  for  the 
acts  of  its  agent,  where  authority  is  vested  in  him  to  act  for  the 
carrier,  or  where  the  acts  are  performed  within  the  scope  of  an 
apparent  authority  which  the  carrier  allows  him  to  assume,  and 
it  will  be  bound  by  a  delivery  made  to  him  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, and  notice  to  such  agent  is  notice  to  the  principal.*® 
The  station  agent  of  a  railroad  company,  or  the  agent  of  an 
express  company,  is  presumed  to  have  authority  to  receive  goods 
offered  for  transportation  when  the  goods  are  tendered  at  the 
station  or  office  of  the  company,  or  regular  place  for  the  reception 
of  goods  for  shipment;  but  where  the  tender  of  freight  for  ship- 
ment is  not  made  at  the  station  or  office  but  at  a  point  remote 
therefrom  the  authority  of  the  agent  must  be  clearly  proved." 
So  persons  dealing  with   railroad   corporations   and   parties  en- 

83.  Ford  v.  Mitchell,  21  Ind.  54.  Dec.  238;  Ouimit  v.  Ilenshaw,  35  Vt. 

84.  Street  v.  Morrison,  10  New  605,  84  Am.  Dec.  646;  Golvin  v.  Kan- 
Bruna.  296.  sas   City,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  21   Mo.   App. 

85.  Uptfgrove  v.  Cpntral  R.  Co..  16  273. 

Misc.  Rep,  (N.  Y.)  14,  37  N.  Y.  Supp.  87.  Cronkite  v.  Wells,  32  N.  Y.  247, 

659.  a  delivery  to  the  clerk  of  an  express 

86.  Rogers  v.  T^ng  Island  R.  Co.,  company's  agent  for  transportation, 
2  Lans.  (N.  Y.)  269,  afTd.  56  N.  Y.  outside  the  agent's  oflTico.  will  not 
620;  Witbeck  v.  Schuyler,  44  Barb.  render  the  company  linble  for  loss  of 
(N.  Y.)  469,  31  How.  Prac.  97;  liar-  the  goods  before  they  come  int  >  ihe 
rell  V.  Wilmington  &  W.  R.  Co.,  106  actual  posarssion  of  its  agent  ;  Mis- 
N.  C.  258.  110  E.  236;  42  Am.  A  Eng.  souri  Coal  &  Oil  Co.  v.  ITannibal, 
R.  Cos.  417;  Montgomory,  etc.,  R.  Co.  He,  R.  Co..  35  ATn.  34:  Dwijri.t  v. 
V.  Kolb,  73  Ala.  396,  40  Am.  Rep.  54,  Brewster,  1  Pick.  (Mass.)  60,  11  Am. 
18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  513;  Mint^r  Dec.  133;  SoutlnTn  Express  Co.  v. 
V.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  41  Mo.  503,  97  Am.  X^-wby,  36  Ga.  635,  91  Am.  Dec.  783. 


188  THE  LAW  OF  CARRlER^S. 

gaged  in  the  transportation  of  freight  have  a  right  to  consider 
that  those  usually  employed  in  the  business  of  receiving  and 
iurwardiug  il  have  ample  autliority  to  deal  with  them.  It  is 
enough  to  establish  a  delivery  in  the  first  instance,  to  prove  tliat 
a  person  thus  acting  received  and  accepted  the  property  for  the 
purpose  of  transportation,  and  even  though  it  subsequently  ap- 
pears that  another  employe  v^as  actually  the  agent  having  charge 
of  this  department  of  the  business,  yet  the  company  who  sanction 
the  performance  of  this  duty  by  other  persons  in  their  employ, 
and  thus  hold  out  to  the  world  that  they  are  authorized  agents, 
are  not  at  liberty  to  relieve  themselves  from  responsibility  by 
repudiating  their  acts.® 

§  9.  Bill  of  lading  not  essential  to  constitute  delivery. 

Under  the  common  law  the  obligation  to  safely  carry  and  de- 
liver goods  received  for  transportation  is  implied  from  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  goods  by  the  carrier  for  that  purpose,  without  any 
written  contract  of  carriage,  and  it  is  not  necessary  that  the 
carrier  shall  have  made  out  and  delivered  to  the  shipper  a  receipt 
or  bill  of  lading  for  the  goods  in  order  to  constitute  a  complete 
delivery  to  the  carrier;  and  this  rule  prevails  in  the  absence  of  a 
statutory  rule  otherwise.^  The  obligation  of  a  common  carrier  is 
fixed  by  law,  and  is  as  much  a  part  of  the  contract  of  shipment 

88.  Grosvenor  v.  New  York  Cent.  Rep.  54,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  512, 
R.  Co..  39  N.  Y.  34,  5  Abb.  Prac.  (N.  and  the  rule  prevails  even  where 
g.)  345.  there  is  a  statute  making  it  compul- 

89.  Grosvenor  v.  New  York  Cent.  sory  on  common  carriers  to  give  re- 
R.  Co.,  39  N.  Y.  34,  5  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  ceipts  and  bills  of  lading  for  goods; 
(N.  Y.)  345;  Salinger  v.  Simmons,  57  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Smyser,  38  III. 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  513.  8  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  354,  87  Am.  Dec.  301;  Toledo,  etc.,  R. 
(N.  Y.)  409;  Packard  v.  Getman,  6  Co.  v.  Gilvin,  81  111.  511;  Loui.sville, 
Cow.  (N.  Y.)  757,  16  Am.  Dec.  475;  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McGuire,  79  Ala.  395, 
Bhelton  v.  Merchant's  Despatch  and  the  carrier's  receipt  of  the  goods 
Transp.  Co.,  36  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  527;  may  be  proven  without  the  produc- 
Lakeman  v.  Grinnell,  18  N.  Y.  Super.  tion  of  the  bill  of  lading  or  account- 

(5    Bosw.)    625;    St.   Louis,    etc.,    R.  ing  for  its  absence.     Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

Co.  V.  Neel,   56  Ark.  279.  55  Am.  ft  v.   Compton    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  38   S. 

Eng.  R.  Cas.  423;   Montgomery,  etc.,  W.  220;   Tx»rd  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co., 

R.  Co.  V.  Kolb,  73  Ala.  396,  49  Am.  105  Me.  255,  74  Atl.  117. 


COMMENCEMENT    OF   CARRIERS    LIABILITY.  ^^^9 

as  though  written  therein.**  And  the  mere  receipt  of  a  bill  of 
lading  does  not  alter  or  affect  a  prior  contract,  under  which 
goods  have  been  actually  shipped  and  are  in  course  of  transit, 
without  an  actual  consent  to  the  change."  In  the  absence  of  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary,  it  is  to  be  assumed  that  goods  accepted 
by  a  carrier  for  transportation  are  taken  under  the  responsi- 
bility cast  upon  the  carrier  by  the  common  law,  save  as  modified 
by  the  statute,  and  the  carrier's  liability,  therefore,  begins  at  the 
time  of  its  acceptance  of  the  complete  control  and  possession  of 
the  goods,  with  no  restrictions  by  the  shipper  as  to  the  time  of 
transportation,  and  not  at  the  time  of  the  bill  of  lading."  But 
the  bills  of  lading  will  displace  the  common  law  relation  and 
control  the  rights  of  the  parties,  when  subsequently  obtained  in 
the  usual  or  customarv^  course  of  business  and  expressing  the 
intentions  or  engagements  of  the  parties,  or  when  they  have 
otherwise  been  assented  to  in  fact  or  law  by  the  shipper  or  owner 
of  the  goods.®^  A  statutory  provision  that  the  transportation  of 
goods  by  a  common  carrier  shall  be  considered  as  commenced 
from  the  time  the  bill  of  lading  is  signed,  does  not  preclude  th: 
liability  from  commencing  from  the  time  of  the  delivery  of  the 
goods.'* 

90.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  301,  10  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cos.  N.  S. 
Kerekordea     (Ind.    App.),    69    N.    E.      182. 

1023.  A  carrier's  liability  begins  when  it 

91.  Farmers'  Loan  &  Trust  Co.  v.  receives  freight  for  immediate  ship- 
Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  120  Fed.  873,  ment,  and  is  not  dependent  upon  the 
57  C.  C.  A.  533.  issuance  of  the   bill   of  lading.     Gar- 

92.  Park  v.  Preston.  108  N.  Y.  ner  v.  St.  I^uis.  I.  M.  &  S.  Ry.  Co., 
434,    15    N.   E.    705;    Cragin    v.   New  79  Ark.  353,  96  S.  W.  187. 

York   Cent.   R.   Co.,   51  N.  Y.   63,   10  93,  Rhelton     v.      Merchants'      Dis- 

Am.    Rep.    559;    Rubens    v.    Ludgate  patch  Transp.  Co.,  59  N.  Y.  258;  rerg. 

Hill  Steamship   Co.,   20  N.   Y.   Supp.  36  N.  Y.  Super.  527;   Mills  v.  Mich- 

481;    Aiken   t.   Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  igan   Cent.   R.   Co.,   45   N.   Y.   622,   6 

68  Iowa  363,  25  Am.  A;  Eng.  R.  Cas.  Am.  Rep.  152. 

377;    St.  I>oui8,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Neel,  94.  East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Ilall, 

i5«    Ark.    279;    Brown    v.    The    Water  64    Tex.    620;    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    y. 

Witch,  Fed.   Cas.  No.   1971;    Snow   v.  Trawick,  80  Tex.  370;    International. 

Canith,   Fed.  Cas.  No.  13144    (15   Spr.  etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Dimmit   County    Pas- 

324)    19   8.  W.   963,   55   Am.  A   Eng.  ture  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  186;  TexaJi 

R.     Cas.     428;     Meloche     v.    Chicago,  Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Nicholson,    61    Tox. 

«tc.,   R.   Co.,  116  Mich.  69,  74   N.   W.  401;    Afartin   v.    Fort   Worth,  <>tr..    R. 


190 


THE  LAW  OF  CARKIERS. 


§  10.  Bill  of  lading  as  an  evidence  of  delivery. 

The  issuance  of  a  bill  of  huliiig  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  a 
delivery  to  the  carrier,  when  issued  by  its  agent  having  actual 
or  apparent  autJiority  Ix)  issue  it,  except  where  there  is  an  ex- 
press understanding  tliat  the  carrier  shall  not  be  liable  until 
actual  delivery  is  made.*'  Ihit  the  fact  that  a  bill  of  lading  has 
been  issued  by  the  carrier  is  not  conclusive  proof  that  the  goods 
for  which  it  was  issued  had  been  delivered  to  the  carrier.^''  A 
bill  of  lading  is  both  a  receipt  and  a  contract  of  carriage.  As 
proof  of  the  actual  taking  of  possession  by  the  carrier  the  bill 
stands  as  a  mere  receipt,  subject  to  rebuttal  or  explanation,  by 
showing  that  it  was  not  the  intention  of  the  parties  to  make  any 
change  in  the  actual  or  legal  custody  of  the  goods  ;^^  or  by  show- 
ing that  the  goods  actually  delivered  were  different  from  those 
stated  in  the  bill  of  lading.*^  When  actual  delivery  has  not  been 
made  to  tho  carrier,  but  the  goods  remain  in  the  possession  of  the 
shipper  or  his  agent,  although  a  bill  of  lading  has  been  issued 


Co.,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  556.  Contra: 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Douglass,  2 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  Cas.  27,  2  Willson  Civ. 
Cas.  Ct.  App.  32,  16  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  98;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wheat,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  (as..  §  164. 
As  to  statute  compelling  carrier  to 
issue  bill  of  lading  describing  the 
goods,  see  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cute- 
man  (Tex.  App.),  14  S.  W.  1009; 
Schloss  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85 
Tex.  601. 

95.  Burwell  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
94  N.  C.  451,  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
410;  Milne  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
155  Mo.  App.  465,  135  S.  W.  85; 
Capehart  v.  Granite  Mills,  97  Ala. 
353,   12   So.   44. 

A  bill  of  lading  is  evidence  of  a 
ehipment,  as  between  the  carrier  and 
shipper.  Flower  v.  Downs,  12  Rob. 
(La.)    101. 

96.  Martin  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  55  Ark.  510,  19  S.  W.  314,  56 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  112,  so  hold,  al- 


though the  issuing  of  bills  of  lading 
except  for  goods  actually  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  carrier  was  forbidden 
by  statute;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Commercial  Union  Ins.  Co.,  139  U.  S. 
223,  11  Sup.  Ct.  554,  35  L.  Ed.  154, 
49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  137;  Califor- 
nia Ins.  Co.  V.  Union  Compress  Co., 
133  U.  S.  387,  10  Sup.  Ct.  365,  33  L. 
Ed.  730;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Knight.  122  U.  S.  79,  7  Sup.  Ct.  1132, 
30  L.  Ed.  1077,  30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
88;  Marine  Ins.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  643,  43  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  79.  But  see  Deming  v.  Mer- 
chants' Cotton-Press,  etc.,  Co.,  90 
Tenn.  306,  17  S.  W.  89,  13  L.  R.  A. 
518;  Otis  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 
112  Mo.  622,  20  S.  W.  676,  55  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  636. 

97.  Cunard  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Kelley  (U. 
S.  C.  C.  A.  Mass.),  115  Fed.  678,  53 
C.  C.  A.  310. 

98.  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Allison, 
115  Ga.  63o,  42  S.  E.  15. 


COMMENCEMENT    OF   CARRIER'S   LIABILITY.  ^cjj^ 

and  has  passed  into  tlie  hands  of  an  innocent  purchaser  for  value, 
the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  a  loss  of  the  goods.*'  The  general 
rules  as  to  what  constitute  a  delivery  to  the  carrier  are  not  changed 
by  statutes  providing  that  bills  of  lading  shall  not  be  issued 
unless  the  goods  have  already  been  actually  delivered  to  the 
carrier.  A  delivery  at  the  point  of  shipment,  to  a  car  not  under 
the  control  or  in  possession  of  the  carrier  issuing  the  bill  of  lading, 
is  not  such  a  delivery  as  to  authorize  the  issuance  of  the  bill,  and 
a  bill  of  lading  issued  under  such  circumstances  is  void  and  a 
transfer  of  it  passes  no  title  to  the  goods.^ 

§  11.  Duty  to  issue  bill  of  lading. 

In  an  early  case  in  Massachusetts  it  v/as  held  that  there  was 
no  law  requiring  a  railroad  company  to  issue  bills  of  lading  for 
goods  delivered  to  be  transported.^  It  was  also  held  in  Alabama 
that  a  railroad  company  could  not  be  compelled  to  give  a  bill 
of  lading  making  it  responsible  for  freight  beyond  its  line.^  And 
in  Georgia  a  statute,  which  prescribes  a  penalty  for  the  refusal 
of  a  railroad  to  receive  and  transport  to  any  point  on  its  own 
line  cars  containing  freight  offered  to  it  by  a  connecting  road 
of  the  same  guage,  was  held  not  to  require  a  railroad  to  issue 
through  bills  of  lading  to  points  on  a  connecting  line,  and  to 
deliver  its  own  cars  containing  freight  to  such  connecting  line; 
and  the  fact  that  it  has  issued  such  through  bills  of  lading  to 
shippers  at  a  certain  point  gave  no  right  to  shippers  at  another 
point  to  demand  that  they  be  likewise  issued  to  them.**  But  it 
has  been  recently  held  in  Texas  that  a  carrier  is  compelled  to 
issue  to  the  shipper  a  bill  of  lading  for  goods  intrusted  to  it 
for  shipment^    And  a  recent  Georgia  case  holds  that  after  there 

99.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Mc-  55  Ark.  510,  19  S.  W.  314,  56  Am.  & 

Fadden,   154  U.   S.   155,   14   Sup.   Ct.  Eng.  R.   Cas.  112;   Aetna  Nat.   Bank 

990,   38  L.   Ed.   944,   67  Am.  &   Eng.  v.  Water  Power  Co.,  58  Mo.  App.  532. 

R.    Cas.    163.      Compare   Otis   Co.   v,  2.  Johnson  v.  Stoddard,  100  Mass. 

Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.,    112   Mo.   622,  306. 

20  S.  W.  676,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  3.  Lotspeich    v.    Central    Railroad, 

636.     See  also.  The  Lady  Franklin,  8  etc.,  Co.,  73  Ala.  306. 

Wall.     (U.    S.)     325;     Hubbersty    v.  4.  Coles   v.   Central    Railroad,   etc. 

Ward,  8  Exch.  330;  Grant  v.  Norway,  Co.,  86  Ga.  251,  12  S.  E.  749. 

10  C.  B.  665,  70  E,  C.  L.  665.  5.  R.    W.     Williamson     ft     Co.     t. 

1.  Martin  v.  St.  Tx)ui-*.  rtr..  R.  Co., 


192 


THJB  LAW   OF  CARIUERS. 


tas  been  a  constructive  delivery  of  freight  to  a  common  carrier 
under  a  local  custom  prevailing  at  a  station  where  it  has  no  agent, 
a  shipper  making  such  delivery  is  entitled  to  a  receipt  for  the 
freight,  though  the  carrier  previously  by  mistake  issued  a  receipt 
therefor  to  a  person  not  entitled  to  be  recognized  as  a  consignor.' 

§  12.  Loading  goods  on  cars. 

It  is  the  duty,  generally,  of  a  railroad  company  to  load  the 
freight  delivered  to  it  for  transportation  into  its  cars,  and  it 
cannot,  generally,  devolve  this  duty  by  any  regulation  upon  the 
shipper;  it  cannot  legally,  as  a  condition  of  transportation  gen- 
erally, exact  from  the  shipper  a  contract  to  place  the  freight  into 
its  cars.^  Where,  by  the  contract  of  carriage,  the  shipper  un- 
dertakes to  load  the  freight  into  the  cars,  or  vessel,  this  does  not 
constitute  such  an  interference  by  the  shipper  with  the  carrier's 
exclusive  possession  and  control  as  to  postpone  the  time  when 
the  carrier  takes  on  the  character  of  a  common  carrier,  and  the 
carrier's  liability  attaches  at  the  time  the  freight  is  offered  for 
carriage  and  accepted,  although  the  loading  of  the  freight  re^ 
mains  to  be  done  by  the  shipper.^    The  carrier  is  responsible  for 

Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  1  Sprague   (U.  S.),  477;  The  Oregon, 

138  S.  W.  807.  Deady    (U.   S.),   179;    Grant  t.  Nor- 

6.  Atlantic  &  B.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Howard  way,  2  Eng.  L.  A  Eq.  337,  10  C.  B. 
Supply  Co.,  125  Ga.  478,  54  S.  E.  530.  665,    70   E.   C.   L.   665,    15   Jur.   296; 

7.  London,    etc.,    Fire    Ins.   Co.    v.  Greenwood    v.    Cooper,    10    La.    Ann. 
Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  N.  Y.  200,  39  796. 

N.  E.   79,  43  Am.  St.  Rep.   752,  61  The  carrier's  liability  is  not  necea- 

Am.  k  Eng.  R.  Cas.  225,  affg.  68  Hun  sarily   affected  by  the  fact  that  the 

(N.   Y.),    598,    23   N.   Y.    App.   231;  shipper  loaded  his  own  goods.     Han- 

Doan  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Mo.  nibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Swift,  79  U.  S. 

App.   408;    St.  Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  (12  Wall.)   262,  20  L.  Ed.  423. 

Martin    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),   35   S.   W.  The  shipper   is   not  entitled   to  re- 


28. 


cover  of  the  carrier  the  cost  of  em- 


8.  London,  etc.,  Fire  Ins.  Co  v.  ploying  hands  for  the  purpose  of  load- 
Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  supra;  Fitchburg,  ing  goods  for  transportation,  where 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hanna,  72  Mass.  (6  it  is  the  custom  for  the  shipper  to 
Grav)  539,  66  Am.  Dec.  427;  Merritt  furnish  the  hands  for  such  purpose 
T.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  Mass.  and  the  custom  has  been  acquiesced 
(11  Allen)  80;  Bulkley  v.  Naumkeag  in.  Reed  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
Steam  Cotton  Co.,  24  How.  (U.  S.)  3  Houst.  (Del.)  176. 
386,  16  L.  Ed.  599;  The  Bark  Edwin, 


COilMEXCEMEXT   OF   CARRIER'S    LLVBILITY.  193 

an  injury  to  tlie  goods  occurring  while  they  are  heing  loaded 
into  the  cars,  where  the  shipper  has  not  undertaken  or  contracted, 
to  load  them  for  himself.'  A  shipper  who,  to  save  charges  or 
for  his  ov\Ti  convenience,  or  any  other  reason,  loads  the  prop- 
erty himself  is  not  the  agent  of  the  carrier  in  so  doing  and  the 
latter  is  not  responsible  for  his  negligence  in  loading  the  carV" 
But  the  carrier  is  liable  if  it  undertakes  to  load  the  goods  and 
allows  them  to  be  injured  through  a  want  of  care  on  its  part, 
€ven  where  it  is  the  shipper's  duty  to  load  them/^ 

§  13.  Proof  of  delivery  to  the  carrier. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  to  recover  for  the  loss  of  goods 
or  an  injury  to  them  by  delay  in  transportation  or  otherwise, 
the  first  essential  to  establish  the  liability  of  the  carrier  is  proof 
of  the  delivery  of  the  goods  to  the  carrier  and  the  acceptance 
thereof  by  the  carrier  for  immediate  transportation.^  Such  proof 
is  furnished  by  testimony  showing  the  facts  necessary  to  consti- 
tute a  delivery  and  acceptance  by  the  carrier,  as  set  forth  in 
preceding  sections  of  this  chapter."  As  has  already  been  shown, 
the  bill  of  lading  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  a  delivery,  but  is 
not  conclusive  evidence."  Shipping  receipts,  bills  for  freight 
charges,  and  other  writings  evidencing  an  exercise  of  possession 
and  control  of  the  goods  by  the  carrier,  are  'prima  facie  evidence 
of  the  facts  recited  therein ;  but  the  carrier  may  show  the  true 
facts  by  oral  testimony.^^  The  burden  of  proof  to  establish  a 
delivery  is  on  the  plaintiff  in  an  action  against  the  carrier  for 
the  loss  of  or  injury  to  the  goods.^*  Where  the  delivery  of  tlie 
goods  for  transportation  is  denied  by  the  carrier,  it  is  sufficient 

9.  Merritt  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  11.  Kimball  v.  Western  R.  Corp., 
Co.,  93  Mass.   (11  Allen)    80;  Gilbert      72  Mass.   (6  Gray)   542. 

V.   N.   Y.    Cent.,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   4   Hun  12.  See  §  1,  ante. 

(N.  Y.),  378,  6  Thomp.  &  C.   (N.  Y.)  13.  Sep  §§  2  to  9,  ante. 

662;    Whitman    v.   Western    Counties  14.  See  §  10,  ante. 

R.  Co.,  17  Nova  Scotia,  405;  Thomas  15.  Union   Pac.    R.    Co.   v.    ITepner, 

V.  Ray,  4  Esp.  N.  P.  262.  3   Colo.   App.    313;    Seller   v.   Steam- 

10.  Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Kenwood  ship  Pacific,  1  Or.  409;  Schloss  v. 
Rri(l<,'e  Co.,  170  111.  645,  49  N.  E.  215,  Atehison,  etc..  W.  Co..  85  Tex.  601; 
9  Am.  k  En{]^.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  550,  rovg.  Horseman  v.  Griind  Trunk  R.  Co.,  .Tl 
judg.   65   111.  App.   145.  U.  C.  Q.  R.  535. 

16.  See  Btirdi-n   of   proof,  ciiap.    14. 

13 


j^C)4.  THE  LAW   OF  CARRIERS. 

for  the  plaintitY  to  show  tliat  the  goods  were  delivered  to  a  pel^ 
eon  and  at  a  place  where  goods  were  accustomed  to  l>e  left  by 
the  carrier,  and  whetlier  such  person  was  paid  any  tiling  or  not 
is  immaterial." 

17,  Purrc'll    V.   North,    2    C.    *   K. 
6S1,  61  E.  C.  L.  681. 


CHAPTER   V. 
Termination  of  Liability. — Delivery  by  Carrier. 

Section     1.  Termination  of  carrier's  liability. 

2.  Unloading  and  storing  goods. 

3.  Liability  for  injury  while  goods  are  being  unloaded. 

4.  Delivery  must  be  made  to  the  consignee  or  his  agent. 

5.  Delivery  may  always  be  made  to  the  true  owner  of  the  goods. 

6.  Delivery  to  fraudulent  purchaser. 

7.  Delivery  of  goods  sent  in  care  of  carrier's  local  agent. 

8.  Consignor's  right  to  change  of  consignee. 

9.  Delivery  to  holder  of  bill  of  lading. 

10.  Carrier  entitled  to  demand  bill  of  lading. 

11.  Carrier's  liability  to  innocent  purchaser  of  bill  of  lading. 

12.  Laches  of  holder  of  bill  of  lading. 

13.  Goods  received  from  connecting  carrier. 
13a.  Where  stoppage   in  transitu  is  provided. 

14.  Stoppage  in  transitu  as  a  defense. 

15.  Holder  of  bill  of  lading  has  priority  over  creditors. 

16.  Effect  of  the  word  "  notify  "  in  a  bill  of  lading. 

17.  Bill  of  lading  attaclied  to  draft. 

18.  Effect  of  bill  of  lading  as  estoppel. 

19.  Duplicate  bills  of  lading. 

20.  Necessity  of  endorsement  of  bill  of  lading. 

21.  Carrier's  liability  for  misdelivery. 

22.  Delivery  to  one  of  two  persons  of  the  same  name. 

23.  Place  of  delivery. 

24.  Right  of  owner  or  consignee  to  change  place  of  delivery. 

25.  Statutory  requirements  as  to  delivery  of  grain. 

26.  When  place  of  destination  is  not  on  carrier's  line. 

27.  Time  of  transportation  and  delivery  in  genorai. 

28.  When  personal  delivery  is  required.     The  conmion  law  rule.    Rule 

as  to  express  companies. 

29.  When  personal  delivery  is  required.     Carriers  by  rail. 

30.  Delivery  by  carriers  by  water. 

31.  Delivery  where  consignoe  refuses  to  receive. 

32.  Delivery  of  goods  sent  C.  0.  D. 

33.  Confusion  of  goods. 

34.  Statutory  penalties  for  refusing  to  deliver  promptly. 

35.  Demand  of  goods  by  consignee. 

86.  Waiver  of  right  of  action  for  wrongful  delivery. 
37.  Right  of  carrier  to  d<'mand  receipts  upon  delivery. 
(105) 


196 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


§  1.  Termination  of  carrier's  liability. 

The  carrier's  undertaking  is  to  deliver  the  goods  transported  by 
it  in  safety  as  well  as  to  carry  safely,  and  its  responsibility  ceases 
when  the  delivery  of  the  goods  is  completed  either  by  an  actual,  or 
a  constructive  or  legal,  delivery  to  the  owner  or  consignee,  or  his 
agent,  or  by  a  deposit  in  a  reasonably  safe  warehouse,  after  the 
consignee  has  had  reasonable  time  in  which  to  call  for  and  re- 
move the  goods  ready  to  be  delivered  to  the  consignee  on  de- 
mand. The  carrier's  liability  cannot  end  until  that  of  the  owner, 
consignee  or  warehouseman  begins.^     The  warranty  of  the  car- 


1.  Ain. — South  &  North  Alabama 
R.  Co.  V.  Wood,  66  Ala.  167,  9  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Gas.  419;  Grei'k-American 
Produce  Co.  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co., 
4  Ala.  App.  377,  5«  So.  994;  C-intral 
of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Burton,  165  Ala. 
425,  51  So.  643. 

Ga. — Georgia  Ry.  Co.  v.  Pound,  111 
Ga.  6,  36  S.  E.  312. 

Kan. — ]\Iissouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.  L. 
Xewburger  &  Bro.,  67  Kan.  846,  73 
Pac.  67. 

III. — Schumacher  v.  Chicago  &  N. 
W.  Ry.  Co.,  108  111.  App.  520,  judg. 
affd.  207  111.  199,  69  N.  E.  825,  a 
railroad  company,  after  the  expira- 
tion of  a  reasonable  time  given  to  the 
shipper  to  move  his  goods,  may  termi- 
nate its  liability  as  a  common  carrier 
by  unloading  and  storing  the  goods 
in  its  warehouse,  thereby  assuming 
the  liability  of  a  warehouseman  only, 
and  may  have  a  lien  for  a  reasonable 
storage  charge;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Kendall,  72  111.  App.  105,  the  lia- 
bility of  a  railroad  company  as 
a  common  carrier  of  freight  ceases 
upon  the  delivery  of  the  car 
containing  the  freight  on  its  side 
track  in  the  usual  and  customary 
place  for  unloading  by  consignees; 
Michigan  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Day,   20   111.    375,    71   Am.   Dec.   278; 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Warren,  16 
111.  502,  63  Am.  Dec.  317;  American 
Express  Co.  v.  Baldwin,  26   111.   504. 

N.  Y. — DeMott  v.  Laraway,  14 
Wend.   (N.  Y.)    225,  28  Am.  Dec.  523. 

Me. — Stone  v.  Waite,  31  Me.  409, 
53  Am.  Dw.  621;  Parker  v.  Flagg. 
26  Me.  181. 

Ohio.- — 'McGregor  v.  Kilgore,  6 
Ohio,  358,  27  Am.  Dec.  260. 

Miss. — Erskino  v.  Thames,  6  Miss. 
371. 

Md. — United  Fruit  Co.  v.  Balti- 
more Transp.  Co.,  104  Md.  567,  65 
Atl.  415. 

iV.  H. — Smith  v.  Nashua,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  7  Fort.    (N.  H.)    86. 

Pa.— Groff  v.  Bloomer,  9  Pa.  St. 
114. 

N.  J. — Bobbink  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  82 
N.  J.  547,  82  Atl.  877. 

8.  C. — Brunson  &  Boatwright  v. 
Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.,  76  S.  C. 
9,  56  S.  E.  538. 

R.  I. — Vaughn  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  27  R.  L  235,  61  Atl.  695, 
where  a  carrier  permits  the  consignee 
of  merchandise  to  open  the  ears  con- 
taining the  same  after  they  have  been 
placed  on  a  spur  track  near  the  con- 
signee's warehouse,  and  to  remove 
part  of  the  contents  thereof,  and  ex- 
ercise and   retain   dominion  over  the 


TERMINATION   OF   LIABILITY. 


197 


rier  as  an  insurer  is  broken  by  non-delivery,  and  the  question  of 
negligence  in  the  performance  of  its  duty  to  deliver  safely  is, 
therefore,  immaterial.^  The  carrier's  liability  as  a  common  car- 
rier terminates  in  respect  to  particular  goods  when  its  liability  as 
warehouseman  commences.^  When  goods  are  safely  conveyed  to 
the  place  of  destination  and  it  is  impossible  for  the  carrier  to 
deliver  the  goods  because  the  consignee  is  dead,  absent,  or  neglects 
or  refuses^  to  receive  the  goods,  or  is  not  known,  or  cannot  after 
reasonable  diligence  be  found,  the  carrier  may  be  discharged  from 
further  responsibility  as  a  carrier  by  storing  the  goods  in  its 
freight  depot,  or  placing  them  in  a  proper  warehouse  for  or  on  ac- 
count of  the  owner,  if  it  has  made  all  reasonable  effort  to  effect 


same,  and  put  his  own  locks  on  the 
cars,  the  carrier's  liability,  as  such, 
for  the  merchandise  in  the  cars,  is 
terminated. 

S.  C. — Deschamps  v.  Atlantic  Coast 
Line  R.  Co.,  82  S.  C.  236.  64  S.  E. 
144;  Murphy  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  77 
S.  C.  76,  57  S.  E.  664. 

U.  8.— The  Titania,  124  Fed.  975, 
after  the  delivering  of  goods  on  a 
wharf,  notice  to  the  consignee,  and 
a  reasonable  time  thereafter  for  the 
consignee  to  take  the  goods  away, 
the  carrier  is  not  under  the  strict 
liability  of  a  carrier,  but  is  charged 
with  liability  as  a  warehouseman  or 
bailee,  and  with  the  duty  of  exercis- 
ing reasonable  care  and  attention  to 
prevent  loss  or  damage  to  the  goods. 
Moffat  V.  Great  Western,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  15  L.  T.  N.  S.  630;  Fowler  v. 
Great  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  L.  J. 
Exch.  76,  7  Exch.  699;  Bodenham  v. 
Bennett,  4  Price,  31;  Duff  v.  Budd, 
3  B.  &  D.  177;  Richards  v.  London, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  L.  J.  C.  P.  251,  7  C. 
B.  839. 

A  subsequent  acquiescence  by  the 
consignee  in  a  wrong  delivery  exempts 
thp  carrier  from  liability  therefor. 
O'Donghertv  v.   Boston,   etc.,   R.   Co., 


1  Sup.  Ct.  (N.  Y.)  477.  Tliere  is  no 
liability  on  the  part  of  a  railroad 
company  as  a  common  carrier  for  car- 
loads of  grain  delivered  by  it  in  pur- 
suance of  a  contract,  and  standing  on 
spur  tracks  on  the  premises  of  an 
elevator  company,  laid  to  store  grain 
until  it  could  be  unloaded  in  the  ele- 
vator, notwithstanding  it  had  the 
further  duty  of  switching  such  cars 
into  the  elevator  when  demanded  by 
those  in  charge,  and  switching  the 
empty  cars  away,  as  such  liability 
terminates  on  delivering  the  cars  on 
such  tracks.  Paddock  v.  Toledo,  etc., 
Ry.  Co.,  11  0.  C.  D.  789,  21  Ohio  Cir. 
Ct.  R.  626. 

2.  Hall  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12 
Allen  (Mass.),  439;  Forbes  v.  Bos- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  Mass.  154,  9  Am. 

6  Eng.  R.  Cas.  76;  Richards  v.  Lon- 
don, etc.,   R.  C,   18   L.  J.   C.  P.   251, 

7  C.  B.  839. 

3.  See  Carrier's  liability  as  ware- 
houseman, chap.  9. 

4.  Levy  v.  Weir,  38  Misc.  Rep.  (N. 
Y.)  361,  77  N.  Y.  Supp.  917;  Byrne 
V.  Fargo,  36  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  543, 
73  N.  Y.  Supp.  943.  See  Delivery 
where  consignee  refuses  to  receive,  § 
31.  pof^t. 


xds 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


a  delivery  and  has  done  all  that  could  reasonably  be  required 
of  it.  If  the  carrier  under  such  circuuistancos  store  the  goods 
in  its  own  warehouse,  after  keeping  them  for  a  reasonable  time, 
if  the  consignee  does  not  call  for  them,  its  liability  as  a  common 
carrier  ceases  and  from  that  time  it  becomes  liable  only  as  a 
warehouseman.^  In  some  instances  it  has  been  held  that  notice  to 
the  consignor  is  necessary,  upon  the  refusal  of  the  consignee  to 
receive  the  goods,  in  order  to  relieve  the  carrier  of  its  responsi- 
bility as  a  carrier.*  The  degree  of  care  which  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  carrier  to  use  in  delivering  the  goods  entrusted  to  it  depends 
upon  and  varies  with  the  nature  and  condition  of  the  goods  and 
the  circumstances  under  which  the  delivery  takes  place.  What 
is  proper  and  reasonable  diligence  to  effect  a  delivery,  and  what 
constitutes  a  delivery  cannot  be  regulated  or  prescribed  by  any 
fixed  standard  but  must  depend  upon  the  varying  circumstances 
of  each  case.^  In  the  case  of  carriers  by  sea  or  on  inland  waters, 
a  delivery  on  the  usual  wharf  is  such  a  delivery  as  will  discharge 


5.  N.  T. — Fenner  v,  Buffalo,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  44  N.  Y.  505;  Powell  v.  Myers, 
26  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  591;  Fisk  v,  New- 
ton, 1  Den.  (N.  Y.)  45,  43  Am.  Dec. 
649;  Jones  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  Transp. 
Co.,  50  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  193,  crit'd,  49 
N.  Y.  303;  Roth  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  34  N.  Y.  548,  90  Am.  Dec.  736; 
Northrop  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 
Trans.  App.  (N.  Y.)  183,  3  Abb.  Dec. 
(N.  Y.)  386;  Mayell  v.  Potter,  2 
Johns.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  371;  Clendaniel 
V.  Tuckerman,  17  Barb.   (N.  Y.)   184. 

Ala. — Kennedy  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  74  Ala.  430,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  145;  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Kidd,   35   Ala.  209. 

Conn. — Hurd  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  S. 
Co.,  40  Conn.  49. 

III. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Friend, 
64  HI.  303;  Bartholomew  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  111.  227,  6  Am.  Rep, 
45. 

Ind. — Adams  Express  Co.  ▼.  Dar- 
nell, 31  Ind.  20,  99  Am.  Dec.  582. 


Ohio. — Hirsch  v.  Steamboat  Quaker 
City,  2  Disney   (Ohio),  144. 

Pa. — ^Cope  V.  Cordova,  1  Rawle 
(Pa.),  203. 

Tenn. — ^Rankin  v.  Memphis,  etc., 
Packet  Co.,  9  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  554,  24 
Am.  Rep.  339;  Dean  v.  Vaccaro,  2 
Head  (Tenn.)  490,  75  Am.  Dec.  744; 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Kaufman,  12 
Heisk.   (Tenn.)    161. 

Wis. — Marshall  v.  American  Ex- 
press Co.,  7  Wis.  1,  73  Am.  Dec.  381. 

Eng. — White  v.  Humphrey,  11  Q. 
B.  43,  63  E.  C.  L.  43;  Cairus  v.  Rob- 
ins, 8  M.  &  W.  258;  Heugh  v.  Lon- 
don, etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  5  Exch.  51,  39 
L.  J.  Exch.  48;  Stephenson  v.  Hart, 
4  Bing.  476,  15  E.  C.  L.  47;  GarsLde 
V.  Trent  Nav.  Co.,  4  T.  R.  581. 

6.  See  Notice  to  consignor,  §  12, 
chap.  9. 

7.  Westchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Elwee,  67  Pa.  St.  211;  Gill  v.  Man- 
chester, etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  L.  J.  Q.  B. 
89,  L.  R.  8  Q.  B.  186;  Redman's  Law 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY.  I99 

the  carrier  when  due  and  reasonable  notice  thereof  has  been 
given  to  tJae  consignee;  but  the  carrier  cannot  leave  or  abandon 
the  goods  upon  the  wharf,  in  an  unprotected  state,  even  though 
there  be  an  inability  or  refusal  of  the  consignee  to  receive  them.* 
As  between  the  carrier  and  the  vendor  of  the  goods,  so  long  as  the 
goods  remain  in  tlie  possession  of  the  carrier  the  right  of  stop- 
page in  transitu  exists  in  favor  of  the  vendor;^  but  when  the 
goods  have  come  under  the  actual  control  of  the  vendee,  the  right 
of  stoppage  ceases;^"  so  that  an  actual  change  of  possession  from 
the  carrier  to  the  consignee  must  have  taken  place  in  order  to 
constitute  such  a  delivery  as  would  bar  the  vendor's  right  of 
stoppage.  A  carrier,  agreeing  with  consignees  to  deliver  cotton 
to  a  compress  company,  must,  in  the  absence  of  any  contract  to 
the  contrary,  make  delivery  in  the  usual  manner,  and  place  the 
cotton  in  an  accessible  position,  and  give  notice  thereof  to  the 
company ;  and  until  this  is  done,  and  reasonable  time  to  unload  has 
elapsed,  the  liability  is  that  of  a  carrier.^^  Where  a  transfer 
company  transporting  goods  consigned  to  the  owner  in  care  of  a 
warehouseman,  was  given  a  receipt  for  the  goods  in  good  condition 
by  the  warehouseman,  and  they  were  found  damaged  on  the 
sidewalk  in  front  of  the  warehouse,  the  warehouseman,  and  not 
the  transfer  company,  is  liable  for  the  damage.^^  Where  the 
carrier  and  shipper  contract  that  the  carrier's  liability  as  such 
shall  tenninate  after  48  hours'  notice  to  the  consignee,  and  the 

E.y.  Carr.   (2d  Ed.),  p.  103;   Cope  v.  notice    given    to    the    consignee,    but 

Cordova,  1  Rawle   (Pa.),  203.  that   the   duty   of   the   carrier   is   to 

8.  McAndrew    v.    Wliitlock,    52    N.  attend  to  the  actual  delivery.    Hemp- 

Y.  40,  11  Am.  Rep.  657;   Rowland  v.  hill   v.  Chenie,  6  W.  &  S.    (Pa.)    62. 

Miln,  2  Hilt.  (N.  Y.)   150;  Gulliver  v.  And   see   Blin   v.   Mayo,    10   Vt.    56; 

Adams     Express    Co.,    38    111.     502;  Galloway  v.  Hughes,  1  Bailey  (S.  C.) 

Bartholomew  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  553. 

53   111.   227;   Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  9.  Harris  v.   Pratt,  17  N.  Y.  240; 

Fairclough,    51    111.     106,      See    also,  Farrell  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 

Mote  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Iowa  N.   C.   390,    37   Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas. 

22;    Mattison  v.  New   York,   etc.,   R.  704,  11  Am.  St.  Rep.   760. 
Co.,    57    N.    Y.    552;     Chickering    v.  10.  Becker     y.     Hallgartcn,    86    N. 

Fowler,  4  Pick.    (Mass.)    371.  Y.  167. 

It  has  been  held  that  the  rcsponsi-  11.  Yazoo  &  M.  V.  R.  Co.  v.  Blum, 

bility    of    a    common    carrier    on    the  —  Miss.  — ,  59  So.  92. 
Ohio  River  does  not  cease  by  the  de-  12.  Neville   v.   Woolverton,   142   N. 

livery  of  the  goods  on  the  wharf  and  Y.  Supp.  292. 


OQQ  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

provisions  of  the  contract  are  not  in  conflict  with  the  law,  thej 
will  govern  the  relations  of  the  parties,  even  though  they  impose 
a  greater  burden  than  the  statute  upon  the  carrier."  A  carrier's- 
liability  for  injuries  to  goods  cannot  survive  a  delivery  and  ac- 
ceptance prior  to  the  damage."  The  relation  of  carrier  and  ship- 
per had  ceased,  though  the  shipper  left  goods  in  the  car,  by  per- 
mission, under  agreement  to  pay  demurrage.^^  Where  the  con- 
signee's agent  had  surrendered  the  bill  of  lading,  gone  to  the  car 
which  had  been  spotted  on  the  delivery  tracks  for  delivery,  and 
had  broken  the  seal  and  entered  the  car  before  a  fire  occurred, 
there  was  a  delivery  and  the  carrier  was  not  liable.^®  The  liabil- 
ity of  a  common  carrier  continues  until  notice  of  the  arrival  of 
goods  at  their  destination  is  given  and  a  reasonable  time  allowed 
to  remove  them,  which  notice  must  be  in  writing,  and  may  be 
delivered  personally,  left  at  the  place  of  business  of  the  con- 
signee, or  deposited  in  the  post  office."  In  an  action  for  loss  of 
goods  by  fire  after  arrival  at  destination,  it  is  proper  to  refuse 
to  instruct  that  payment  of  freight  alone  terminated  the  contract 
of  carriage. ^^  The  reasonable  time  after  notice  that  must  be 
allowed  by  a  railroad  company  for  a  consignee  to  remove  its  goods 
from  its  depot  applies  to  every  one  alike,  regardless  of  the  con- 
signee's distance  from  the  depot. ^^  A  consignee  should  have  a 
reasonable  time  to  remove  goods  after  they  have  been  placed  in 
a   carrier's  warehouse  at   their   destination.^"     A   carrier   is   not 

13.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hicks  so  that  the  carrier  was  not  liable  for 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  158  S.  W.  192.  damage  to   the  goods   from   rain   the 

14.  Barclay    v.    Southern    Ry.    Co.,  night      after     he     began     unloading. 
a^la.  App.  ,  60  So.  479.  Southern  Ry.   Co.  v.  Barclay,   1  Ala. 

15.  Texas   &   P.   R.   Co.   v.   Robert-  App.  348,  56  So.  26. 

son   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  143  S.  W.  708.  17.  Citizens'    &    Marine    Bank    of 

16.  Rothchild  Bros.  V.  NorthemPac.      Newport  News  v.   Southern   Ry.   Co., 
Ry.  Co.,  68  Wash.  527,  123  Pac.  1011.       153  N.  C.  346,  69  S.  E.  261. 

Where  the  shipper  of  a  car  load  of  18.  Eli  Hurley  &  Son  v.  Norfolk  & 

household  goods  took  charge  of  them  W.  Ry.  Co.,  68  W.  Va.  471,  69  S.  E. 

when  they  were  switched  onto  a  sid-  904. 

ing  at  a  station  which  had  no  depot  19.  Gulf,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ferguson- 

or   agent,   and   commenced   unloading  McKinney   Dry   Goods    Co.,   97   Miss, 

them,    locking  the   car   for   the   night  266.   52  So.  797. 

to   finish   the   next  day,  there  was  a  20.  Lewis  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co., 

complete  delivery  of  the  car  to  him,  135  Ky.  361.  122  S.  W.  184. 


TERMINATION   OF   LIABILITY.  201 

liable  for  damage  to  oats  by  fermentation  while  the  cars  are  at  the 
point  of  destination,  awaiting  delivery  to  the  consignee  who  has 
received  proper  notice  of  their   arrival."     A   carrier's  liability 
as  such   continues  until  such   time  as  the  consignee  has  had  a 
reasonable  time  to  inspect  the  goods  and  take  them  away  after 
notice  of  arrival  in  the  usual  course  of  business.^^    Where  a  com- 
mon carrier  has  transported  goods  to  destination,  and  the  con- 
signee has  paid  the  freight  and  given  his  receipt  for  the  shipment, 
the  contract  of  carriage  is  complete;  and  if,  having  received  a 
portion  of  the  goods,  he  leaves  the  remainder  in  the  depot  over 
night,  through  the  courtesy  of  the  carrier,  and  it  is  burned,  the 
carrier,  if  liable,  is  responsible  only  for  gross  negligence.^^    Where 
freight  does  not  arrive  at  its  destination  on  time,  for  this  reason, 
as  well  as  because  the  bill  of  lading  provides  for  notice,  notice 
of  its  being  ready  for  delivery  is  necessary  to  relieve  the  carrier 
of  liability  for  its  destruction  by  fire,  though  there  has  been  a 
reasonable   time  for  its   removal   after  it  was   ready   therefor.^* 
Where  the  consignee  is  present  on  the  arrival  of  goods,  he  is  re- 
quired to  receive  them  without  unreasonable  delay,  or  the  carrier's 
liability  as  such  is  terminated.     If  the  consignee  is  absent,  but 
lives   in  the   immediate   vicinity   of   the   place   of   delivery,    the 
carrier  must  notify  him  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods,  after  which 
he  has  a  reasonable  time  to  remove  them;  but  if  he  is  absent, 
unknown,  or  cannot  be  found,  the  carrier  may  place  tlie  goods  in 
a  warehouse,  and  after  keeping  them  a  reasonable  time,  if  not 
delivered,  the  carrier's  liability  as  such  eeases.^^     Where  a  bill 
of  lading  provided  that  property  not  removed  within  24  hours 
after  arrival  at  destination  may  be  kept  in  the  car,  depot,  or  place 
of  delivery  of  the  carrier  at  the  ownei-'s  risk,  or  may  at  the  car- 
rier's option  be  stored  at  the  owner's  risk  and  cost,  subject  to  the 
carrier's  lien,  such  clause  was  only  applicable  to  property  after 
it  reached  its  destination  and  did  not  apply  to  hay  transported 

21.  Hardin    v.    Chicajjo    &    A.    Ry.  23.  Stewart  v.   Central   of  Ga.  Ry. 
Co.,    134   Mo.    App.    681,    114    S.    W.      Co.,  3  Ga.  App.  397,  60  S.  E.  1. 

J1/7  24.  Scott  County  Milling  Co.  v.  St. 

22.  North      Yakima      Brewing      &      Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  127  Mo.  App.  80, 
Malting  Co.  v.  Northern  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,       104   S.  W.  924. 

49  Wash.  375,  95  Pac.  486.  25.  McGregor  v.  Orogon  R.  Co.,  50 

Or.    527,   93   Pac.    465. 


202  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

under  a  contract  requiring  delivery  at  ship's  side  within  lighter- 
age limits  of  tlie  port  of  New  York,  which  had  only  reached  the 
rail  terminal  at  the  time  it  was  stored  and  destroyed.^''  The  liabil- 
ity of  a  carrier  of  a  carload  of  freight  continues  until  the  dis- 
charge of  the  freight  from  the  car."  Even  though  a  consignee 
had  a  right  to  inspect  cars  of  freight  placed  on  its  switch  before 
accepting  them,  a  delivery  on  the  switch  subject  to  the  right  of 
inspection  released  the  carrier  from  liability  as  a  common  car- 
rier, unless  the  consignee  on  inspection  rejected  the  freight,  and 
notified  the  carrier  thereof.^^ 

§  2.  Unloading  and  storing  goods. 

In  some  jurisdictions  the  rule  prevails  that  the  unloading  of  the 
goods  by  the  carrier  and  their  safe  deposit  in  a  place  usually  con- 
venient for  being  taken  away  by  the  consignee,  such  as  the  plat- 
form or  warehouse  of  the  company,  or  a  storehouse  from  which  the 
consignee  may  obtain  them  upon  demand,  although  the  carrier 
does  not  notify  the  consignee  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods,  constitutes 
a  delivery  and  the  carrier's  liability  as  an  insurer  ceases,  in  the 
absence  of  any  special  circumstances  or  agreement  effecting  the 
case.^'     In  other  jurisdictions  the  rule  is  that  the  carrier's  lia- 

26.  Bolles  V.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  201,  19  Am.  Rep.  433.  This  rule  is 
159  Fed.  694,  86  C.  C.  A.  562.  maintained  in  Massachusetts, 

27.  Yount  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  136  Georgia,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Mis- 
Mo.  App.  697,  119  S.  W.  1.  souri,   Pennsylvania    North   Carolina, 

28.  Kingman  St.  Louis  Implement  and  Tennessee.  See  Carrier's  liability 
Co.  V.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  133  Mo.  App.  as  warehouseman  as  to  goods  await- 
317,  112  S.  W.  721.  ing  delivery,  §  3,  chap.  9. 

Where,    after    delivery    of    cars    of  Payment  of  freight  charges  by  the 

freight    to    a    consignee,    the   carrier  consignee     after    notice     of    arrival, 

agreed  to  take  them  to  higher  ground  without   any   arrangement   as   to   the 

to   protect   them   from   flood   without  further  custody  of  the  goods  by  the 

any   charge    for    switching   or    other-  company,   amounts   to   a   delivery   so 

wise,    except    the    actual    expense    of  far  as  to  throw  the  risk  of  loss  upon 

handling  the  cars  to  keep   them  out  the  consignee.     New  Albany,  etc.,  R. 

of  the  water,  the  carrier  took  the  cars  Co.  v.   Campbell,   12   Ind.   55;    Chalk 

as  a  bailee,  and  not  as  a  carrier.  Id.  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  N.  C.  423, 

29.  Thomas  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  106.  See  also, 
Corp.,  10  Mete.  (Mass.)  477,  43  Am.  Baldwin  v.  American  Express  Co.,  23 
Dec.    444;    Rice   v.   Hart,    118    Mass.  III.  197,  74  Am.  Dec.  190,  as  to  what 

constitutes    a      delivery    where    con- 


TERMINATION  OF   LIABILITY. 


20: 


bilitj  as  insurer  continues  after  the  arrival  of  the  goods  at  their 
destination  and  their  deposit  there  in  a  warehouse,  until  the  lapse 
of  a  reasonable  time  for  the  removal  of  the  goods  bj  the  consignee, 
after  notice  of  their  arrival.  But  when  such  reasonable  time  has 
elapsed,  a  constructive  delivery  is  effected  and  the  company  be- 
comes liable  as  warehouseman  merely.^"  Where  it  is  expressly 
provided  in  the  contract  of  shipment,  or  the  consignee  accepts 
such  delivery,  a  complete  delivery  may  be  effected  before  the  goods 
are  unloaded.^^  A  delivery  of  part  of  a  consignment  of  goods  ordi- 
narily establishes  a  presumptive  delivery  of  the  entire  consign- 
ment,^^ but  where  the  evidence  is  conflicting  the  question  whether 
the  delivery  of  a  part  was  intended  for  a  delivery  of  the  whole 
or  only  of  the  part  taken,  is  properly  one  for  the  jury.^^  What 
constitutes  a  sufficient  delivery  by  a  carrier  is  ordinarily  a  question 


signee    was    absent,    and    the    goods 
were  stored. 

A  carrier  transporting  freight  on 
platform  cars  to  a  station  where  it 
maintains  a  freight  house,  but  no 
agent,  is  held,  in  Normile  v.  Northern 
P.  R.  Co.,  36  Wash.  21,  77  Pac.  1087, 
67  L.  R.  A.  271,  to  be  obliged  to  place 
the  freight  in  the  freight  house  in 
order  to  relieve  itself  from  liability 
for  freight  lost  through  th*;ft,  unless 
it  shows  that  it  is  not  able  to  do  so. 

30.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Naive, 
(Tenn.)  79  S.  W.  124;  Herf  &  Fre- 
ricks  Chemical  Co.  v.  Lackawanna 
Line,  (Mo.  App.)  73  S.  W.  346;  King 
V.  New  Brunswick,  etc.,  Steamboat 
Co.,  36  Misc.  Rep.  (N,  Y.)  555,  73  N. 
Y.  Supp.  999;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
in  New  Hampshire,  New  York  and 
many  of  the  other  states  and  is  the 
English  rule.  See  Carrier's  liability 
as  warehouseman  as  to  goods  await- 
ing delivery,  §  4,  chap.  9. 
E.  Cas.  645;  Bradshaw  v.  Irish  North 
Western  R.  Co.,  7  Ir.  R.  C.  L.  252,  3 
Ry.  &  Ct.  Cas.  XI.  This  rule  is  held 
Havnes.  72  Tex.  175.  37  Am.  &  Eng. 


31.  Whitney  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Richmond, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  S.  C.  365,  37  Am.  St. 
Rep.  767,  55  Am.  &  Eng;  R.  Cas,  611; 
Armistead  Lumber  Co.  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  Miss.)  11  So.  472,  55 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  600.  Compare 
Pindell  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34 
Mo.  App.  675. 

32.  Stapleton  v.  Grand  Trunk  Ry. 
Co.,  (Mich.)  94  N.  W.  739,  10  Det. 
Leg.  N.  133;  Tallahassee  Falls  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Western  Ry.  of  Alabama, 
(Ala.)   29  So.  203;  Whitney  Mfg.  Co. 

v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  supra;  Cul- 
breth  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 
Houst.  (Del.)  392.  Compare  Cox  v. 
Peterson,  30  Ala.  608,  68  Am.  Dec. 
145,  where  the  acceptance  of  a  por- 
tion of  the  goods  by  the  consignee  at 
a  different  place  from  that  specified 
in  the  contract,  though  held  admissi- 
ble in  mitigation  of  damages,  was 
held  not  to  discharge  the  carrier  from 
liability  as  to  the  remainder. 

33.  Sessions  v.  Western  R.  Corp , 
16  Gray  (Mass.)  132;  Cook  v.  Erie 
R.  Co.,  58  Barb.  (N.  Y.)   312. 


204 


THE  LAW  OF  CAKiUERa. 


of  fact  to  be  determined  by  the  jury,  but  when  there  is  no  conflict 
in  the  testimony  it  may  be  settled  by  the  court.^^ 

§  3.  Liability  for  injury  while  goods  are  being  unloaded. 

Ordinarily  it  is  the  carrier's  duty  to  unload  goods  with  due  care 
at  the  termination  of  their  transit,  and  it  is  responsible  for  in- 
juries to  the  goods  while  being  unloaded.^^  In  unloading  and  de- 
livering goods  transported  by  it,  the  carrier  is  liable  in  all  cases 
for  the  want  of  ordinary  care  on  the  part  of  its  servants.^*  But  if 
the  delivery  has  been  completed  by  the  acceptance  by  the  owner 
or  consignee  of  the  goods  before  they  are  unloaded  and  the  owner 
or  consignee  voluntarily  undertakes  to  unload  them  or  has  previ-  . 
ously  agreed  to  unload  them,  the  owner  or  consignee  of  the  goods 
becomes  responsible  for  any  loss  or  injury  incurred  during  the 


34.  Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Eicho- 
ofer,  100  Ala.  224  Whitney  Mfg.  Co. 
V,  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  supra. 

35.  Russell  v.  Livingston,  19  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  346;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bensley,  69  111.  630;  Porter  v.  Rail- 
road, 20  111.  407;  Alabama,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Kidd,  35  Ala.  209. 

Where  it  was  the  duty  of  the  de- 
fendant to  transfer  a  load  to  a 
steamer  from  a  lighter  and  the  neg- 
ligent manner  of  unloading  was  the 
cause  of  the  lighter's  listing  and  a 
portion  of  the  goods  being  l-oet,  the  de- 
fendant was  liable  for  the  damage. 
McAllister  v.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  (U. 
S.  D.  C.  N.  Y.)   Ill  Fed.  938. 

36.  DeMott  v.  Laraway,  14  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  225,  28  Am.  Dec.  523,  where 
a  hogshead  of  molasses  is  allowed  to 
fall  while  it  is  being  unloaded  from 
the  vessel  to  the  wharf,  and  its  con- 
tents thereby  lost,  it  is  no  defense 
that  the  hoisting  tackle  belongs  to 
some  third  person,  since  the  tackle 
must  be  regarded  as  the  carrier's  pro 
hoc  ince. 

The  rule  stated  in  the  text  is  true, 
although  the  consignee,  knowing  it  to 


be  the  rule  of  the  company  that  he 
must  unload,  and  that  if  he  failed  to 
do  so  within  a  certain  time  the  com- 
pany would,  has  neglected  to  unload, 
Kimball  v.  Western  R.  Corp.,  6  Gray 
(Mass.)    542. 

"  The  precise  degree  of  care  which 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  use 
in  delivering  the  goods  intrusted  to 
him  must  depend  upon  and  vary  with 
the  nature  and  condition  of  the 
thing  carried,  and  the  ever  varying 
circumstances  under  which  the  de 
livery  takes  place.  Some  goods  re- 
quire much  more  tender  handling 
than  others;  some  animals  much 
more  care  and  management  than  oth- 
ers, according  to  their  nature,  habits, 
and  conditions;  and  the  line  of  con- 
duet  which  the  carrier  should  pro- 
pose to  himself  is  that  which  a 
prudent  owner  would  adopt  if  he 
were  in  the  carrier's  place  under  tha 
circumstances  and  subject  to  the  con- 
ditions in  which  the  carrier  is  placed 
and  under  which  he  is  called  on  to 
act."  Gill  V.  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Co^ 
42  L.  J.  Q.  B.  89,  L.  R.  8  Q.  B.  186. 


TERMINATION  OF   LIABILITY. 


205 


work  of  unloading,  even  though  he  has  the  assistance  of  the  car- 
rier's servants."  But  where  by  the  provisions  of  a  bill  of  lading 
merchandise  is  to  be  delivered  "  from  the  ship's  tackle  where  the 
ship's  responsibility  shall  cease,"  her  liability,  after  the  goods  are 
discharged,  is  that  of  a  bailee,  charged  with  the  duty  to  take  ordi- 
nary care  of  the  property  for  a  reasonable  length  of  time,  and  not 
to  abandon  it,  or  negligently  expose  it  to  injury.^^  An  owner  or 
consignee  accepting  freight  in  a  car  and  undertaking  to  unload  it 
is  responsible  for  any  injury  incurred  during  the  progress  of  the 
unloading.^^ 

§  4.  Delivery  must  be  made  to  the  consignee  or  his  agent. 

No  obligation  of  the  carrier  is  more  rigorously  enforced  than 
that  which  requires  delivery  to  the  proper  person,  and  the  law 
allows  of  no  excuse  to  a  common  carrier  for  a  wrong  delivery  of 
goods  entrusted  to  him  for  transportation,  except  the  fault  of  the 


37.  Lewis  v.  Western  R.  Corp.,  11 
Mete.    (Mass.)    509. 

A  consignee,  or  his  authorized 
agent,  may  receive  goods  addressed  to 
him  in  the  hands  of  a  earner  at  any 
place  either  before  or  after  their  ar- 
rival at  their  place  of  destination, 
and  such  acceptance  operates  as  a 
discharge  of  the  carrier  from  his  lia- 
bility to  the  consignor.  Sweet  v. 
Barney,  23  N.  Y.  337. 

Where  the  owner  furnished  skids 
for  unloading  a  hogshead  of  molasses 
from  the  carrier's  wagon,  and, 
through  a  latent  defect  in  the  skids, 
the  hogshead  fell  to  the  ground  and 
its  contents  were  lost,  the  carrier  was 
not  liable.  Lovcland  v.  Burke,  120 
Mass.  139,  21  Am.  Rep.  507. 

38.  Smith  v.  Britain  S.  S.  Co.,  (U. 
S.  D.  C.  N.  Y.),  123  Fed.  176;  Chel- 
sea Jute  Mills  V.  Britain  S.  S.  Co.,123 
Fed.  176,  where  the  owners  of  a  con- 
signment of  jute  were  notified  of  the 
arrival  of  the  ship  and  the  time  of 
discharging,    but    did    not    remove    a 


part  of  the  goods  because  it  was  more 
convenient  to  load  it  upon  lighters 
after  the  ship  had  left  her  berth,  the 
ship  was  held  not  liable  for  an  in- 
jury by  rain  to  the  jute  which  she 
was  compelled  to  unload  on  an  un- 
covered part  of  the  wharf  because  the 
sxied  under  which  most  of  it  was 
placed  had  been  filled,  and  where  she 
covered  it  and  took  all  reasonable 
care  to  protect  it  from  injury. 

Unloading  goods  during  a  storm 
on  an  open  platform,  and  leaving 
them  unprotected  from  the  weather 
is  not  a  fault  of  the  carrier,  where 
there  is  no  building  at  that  station 
or  any  agent  of  the  carrier,  and  the 
bill  of  lading  provides  that  when  de- 
livered on  the  platform  they  are  at 
the  risk  of  the  owner.  Allam  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  183  Pa.  174, 
41  W.  N.  C.  205,  38  At!  709,  39  L. 
R.   A.   535. 

39.  Beaumont  v.  Philadelphia  & 
R.  Ry.  Co.,  38  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  224. 


20t) 


THE  LAW  OF  CAKRIERS. 


shipper  himself.  Unless  there  are  special  circumstancos  which 
permit  a  delivery  to  be  made  otherwise,  the  delivery  must  be  made 
to  the  cousiguee  of  the  goods,  or  to  his  duly  authorized  ageut,  and 
the  carrier  is  responsible  if  the  goods  are  delivered  to  any  other 
party.'"*  The  carrier  is  liable  in  an  action  for  conversion."  The 
consignee  is  the  presumptive  owner  of  the  thing  consigned,  and  a 
carrier,  without  notice  to  the  contrary,  must  regard  the  consignee 
of  the  goods  as  the  absolute  owner,  and  a  legal  delivery  to  him 
will  discharge  the  carrier  from  all  liability  to  the  consignor.^ 
A  delivery  to  the  consignee's  agent,  who  has  been  duly  authorized 
to  receive  the  goods  for  his  principal,  is  a  good  delivery,*''  or  a 


40.  Furman  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co., 
106  N.  Y.  579,  13  N.  E.  587;  Viner 
V.  New  York,  etc.,  Steamship  Co.,  50 
N.  Y.  25.  Where  a  carrier  delivered 
certain  merchandise  directed  to  M. 
at  a  certain  casino  to  a  barkeeper  at 
the  casino,  who  was  not  M.'s  agent, 
or  authorized  by  her  to  receive  the 
package,  there  was  no  delivery  to  the 
consignee,  and  the  carrier  was  there- 
fore liable.  Charles  Schlesinger  & 
Sons  V.  New  York,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  85 
N.  Y.  Supp.  372. 

The  carrier  is  entitled  to  pay  to 
the  consignee  the  value  of  goods  lost 
•while  in  its  charge  and  for  which  it 
is  responsible;  and  the  fact  that  the 
consignee  owned  the  article  by  virtue 
of  a  conditional  sale  duly  registered 
•will  not  render  it  liable  to  the 
vendor  for  the  amount  still  due  him 
by  the  consignee.  Dyer  v.  Great 
Northern  R.  Co.,  51  Minn.  345. 

41.  Security  Trust  Co.  v.  Wells, 
Fargo  &  Co.  Express,  81  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  426,  80  N.  Y.  Supp,  830; 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Seley,  31  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  158,  72  S.  W.  89;  Cleve- 
land, etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Wright,  25  Ind, 
App.  525,  58  N.  E.  559. 

A  demand  of  the  delivery  of  goods 
by  a  mortgagee,  by  virtue  of  a  chat- 


tel mortgage  after  conditions  broken, 
but  without  legal  process,  will  not 
make  the  carrier  liable  for  'conversion 
if  it  refuses  to  surrender  them, 
where  the  goods  were  received  from 
a  third  person  who  has  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing therefor.  Kohn  v.  Richmond, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  S.  C.  1,  34  Am.  St. 
Rep.  726,  16  S.  E.  376,  47  Alb.  L.  J. 
71. 

42.  O'Dougherty  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  C«.,  1  Thomp.  &  C.  (N.  Y.)  477; 
Tibbs  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  C,  20  Ind. 
App.  192,  50  N.  E.  486;  Bingham  v. 
Lamping,  26  Pa.  St.  340,  67  Am.  Dec. 
418;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Craw- 
ford,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)    35  S.  W.  748. 

Where  goods  were  consigned  to  K., 
care  of  "  B's  Express,"  it  was  proper 
for  the  carrier  to  deliver  the  goods 
to  K.  without  production  of  the  bill 
of  lading,  since  by  the  consignment 
and  delivery  of  the  goods  to  the  car- 
rier, to  be  conveyed  to  the  consignee, 
the  property  in  the  goods  became 
vested  in  the  consignee.  Schlesinger 
V.  West  Shore  R.  Co.,  88  111.  App. 
273. 

43.  Ontario  Bank  v.  New  Jersey 
Steamboat  Co.,  59  N.  Y.  510;  Platfc 
V.  Wells,  26  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  442, 
2  Robt.    (N.  Y.)    101;    Illinois   Cent. 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


207 


delivery  to  a  third  partj  under  instructions  from  sucli  agent.** 
A  delivery  of  a  money  package  addressed  to  a  bank  or  to  the 
cashier  of  a  bank  has  been  held  good  when  delivered  to  a  receiving 
teller  or  other  employe  of  the  bank  acting  at  the  time  in  the  dis- 
charge of  his  duties  and  authorized  and  accustomed  to  receive 
money  packages  for  the  bank.*^  So,  of  a  delivery  of  such  a  pack- 
age to  a  wharfinger,  in  accordance  with  a  uniform  usage  to  deliver 
such  packages  of  money  shown  to  have  been  well  known  to  the 
plaintiff.*®  The  delivery  of  a  wife's  goods  to  a  husband  may  be 
made  under  such  circumstances  that  the  carrier  will  have  the  right 
to  presume  and  act  upon  the  presumption  that  the  husband  is 
the  duly  authorized  agent  of  the  wife.*^  It  devolves  upon  the 
carrier,  in  an  action  for  misdelivery,  to  prove  the  agent's  author- 
ity to  receive  the  goods,  where  it  defends  on  the  ground  that  it 
delivered  the  goods  to  the  consignee's  agent,  or  to  show  that  the 
person  to  whom  the  goods  were  delivered  had  such  apparent  au- 
thority as  to  justify  the  carrier  in  presuming  that  such  person 
had  authority  to  receive  the  goods.*^     Where  the  consignor  is 


R.  Co.  V.  Simpson,  17  111.  App.  325; 
Lewis  V.  Western  R.  Corp.,  11  Mete. 
(Mass.)  509;  Southern  Express  Co. 
V.  Everett,  37  Ga.  688. 

44.  Gates  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
42  Neb.  379. 

Delivery  to  a  cartman,  drayman, 
or  other  person  not  authorized  by  the 
consignee  to  receive  the  goods  is  at 
the  carrier's  risk.  Dean  v.  Vaccaro, 
2  Head.  (Tenn.)  488,  75  Am.  Dec. 
744. 

45.  Sweet  v.  Barney,  23  N.  Y.  335; 
Hotchkiss  v.  Artisans'  Bank,  2  Abb. 
App.  Dec.  (N.  Y.)  403,  aflf'g  42  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  517. 

46.  Bank  v.  Champlain  Transp. 
Co.,  16  Vt.  52,  42  Am.  Dec.  491. 

47.  Reynolds  v.  New  York  Cent., 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  N.  Y.  Supp.  331,  21  St. 
Rep.  (N.  Y.)  319;  Furman  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Iowa,  42,  23  Am. 
ft  Eng.  R.  Cas,  731,  62  Iowa  395. 

48.  Williams   v.   Holland    22   How. 


Pr.  (N.  Y.)  137;  Nebenzahl  v.  Fargo, 
15  Daly  (N.  Y.),  130,  where  delivery 
to  one  claiming  to  be  a  clerk,  but 
whose  authority  was  denied  by  the 
consignee,  was  held  to  be  unauthor- 
ized; Angle  V.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  9  Iowa  487,  18  Iowa  555,  where 
a  new  firm  was  held  not  to  have  au- 
thority to  receive  under  an  authori- 
zation given  to  the  old  firm;  Adams 
v.  Blankenstein,  2  Cal.  413,  56  Am. 
Dec.  350;  Hermann  v.  Goodrich,  21 
Wis.  536,  94  Am.  Dec.  562;  Waldron 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Dakota, 
336;  The  Steamboat  Sultana  v. 
Chapman,  5  Wis.  454. 

No  greater  proof  of  authority  is 
required  than  for  any  other  issue  in 
a  civil  action.  Wilcox  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Minn.  269. 

The  delivery  of  goods  on  a  forged 
order  purporting  to  come  from  the 
consignee,  although  the  order  was 
presented  by  a  person  who  had  for- 


208 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


known  to  the  carrier  to  be  the  owner,  the  carrier  must  be  under- 
stood to  contract  with  him  only,  for  his  interest,  upon  such  terms 
as  he  dictates  in  regard  to  the  delivery,  and  the  consignee  is  to  be 
regarded  simply  as  an  agent  selected  by  him  to  receive  the  goods 
at  the  place  indicated.  A  delivery  by  the  carrier  in  such  case, 
without  the  knowledge  of  the  shipper,  to  a  third  person,  at  the 
place  of  shipment,  on  the  order  of  the  consignee,  will  render  the 
carrier  liable  to  the  shipper.*^  Where  the  consignor  has  expressly 
directed  a  delivery  to  a  third  person,  or  to  the  consignee  only  upon 
his  performing  certain  prescribed  conditions,  the  delivery  must  be 
in  accordance  with  such  instructions;^"  and  a  delivery  in  accord- 
ance with  the  consignor's  orders  relieves  the  carrier  from  further 
liability.^^  A  carrier  who,  without  authority  from  the  consignor 
or  consignee,  delivers  to  the  consignor's  general  agent  at  the  place 
of  delivery  a  package  directed  to  the  consignee,  is  liable  therefor 
to  the  consignee,^^  And  where  the  consignee  of  goods  did  not  re- 
side at  the  point  where  they  were  to  be  delivered  and  did  not  ex- 
pect to  be  there  to  receive  them,  the  carrier  was  held  not  to  be 


merly  been  the  consignee's  clerk,  does 
not  relieve  the  carrier  from  liability. 
American  Merchants'  Union  Exp.  Co. 
V.  Milk,  73  111.  224. 

49.  Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Dick- 
son, 94  U.  S.  549;  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Hartwell,  99  Ky.  436,  36  S.  W. 
183,  18  Ky.  L.  Rep.  745,  4  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  550,  38  S.  W. 
1041, 

And  where  the  local  agent  of  the 
consignor,  to  whom  the  goods  were 
consigned  has  directed  the  carrier  to 
deliver  them  only  upon  his  order,  a 
delivery  by  the  carrier  to  a  third  per- 
son was  without  authority.  Wolfe  v. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  97  Mo.  473,  10 
Am.  St.  Rep.  331,  37  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.    715. 

An  agent  of  the  consignor  has  no 
implied  authority  to  direct  the  car- 
rier as  to  whom  goods  shall  be  de- 
livered to,  and  a  mere  statement  by 
him  that  the  goods  are  intended  for 


certain  parties  without  further  direc- 
tions from  the  shippers  will  not  jus- 
tify a  delivery  to  such  parties.  Saw- 
yer V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Wis. 
403,  99  Am.  Dec.  49. 

50.  Foggan  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.;  R. 
Co.,  16  N.  Y.  Supp.  25,  where  the 
shipper  directed  a  delivery  to  the  con- 
signee only  upon  his  producing  a  bill 
of  lading;  Wright  v.  Northern  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  8  Phila.  (Pa.)  19,  where  goods 
were  sent  to  "  order  of  A.  B.  &  Co., 
notifying  C,"  the  carrier  was  held 
liable  for  a  wrongful  delivery  to  C. 
without  an  order  from  A.  B.  &  Co. 
See  also  Delivery  to  holder  of  bill  of 
lading,  §  9,  post. 

51.  Ruffin  V.  Ruggiero,  10  Misc. 
Rep.  (N.  Y.)  39;  Brasher  v.  Denver, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Colo.  384. 

52.  Ela  V.  American  M.  U.  Ex- 
press Co.,  29  Wis.  611,  9  Am.  Rep. 
619. 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


209 


justified  in  delivering  tliem  to  the  resident  agent  of  the  consignee 
there." 


§  5.  Delivery  may  always  be  made  to  the  true  owner  of  the 
goods. 

When  the  real  owner  of  goods  in  the  hands  of  a  carrier  comes 
and  demands  his  property  he  is  entitled  to  its  immediate  delivery, 
and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  make  it.  The  law  will  not 
adjudge  the  performance  of  this  duty  tortious  as  against  a  con- 
signor or  consignee  having  no  title.^*  The  carrier  has  the  right 
to  interpose,  in  all  cases,  as  a  defense  to  an  action  brought  by  the 
bailor  subsequently  for  the  property,  the  right  of  the  third  person 
to  whom  it,  as  bailee,  has  yielded  by  delivering  the  property.^^ 
Where  the  carrier  surrenders  possession  of  the  goods  to  the  person 
whom  it  ascertains,  in  the  course  ui  the  transportation  or  before 
final  delivery,  to  be  the  real  owner,  it  is  discharged  from  further 
liability. ^^  But  to  justify  a  delivery  to  the  true  owner  contrary 
to  or  without  the  orders  of  the  consignor,  the  carrier  assumes  the 
burden  of  proving  the  ownership  at  the  time  of  such  delivery  and 
the  immediate  right  of  possession  to  have  been  in  the  person  to 


53.  Wilson  Sefwing  Machine  Ck). 
V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Mo.  203. 

54.  Western  Transp.  Co.  v.  Barber, 
56  N.  Y.  544;  MuHins  v.  Chicker- 
ing,  110  N.  Y.  514;  The  Idaho,  93 
U.°S.  575,  23  L.  Ed.  978,  11  Blatchf. 
(U.  S.)  218;  Wells  v.  American  Ex- 
press Co.,  55  Wis.  23,  42  Am.  Rep. 
fi95,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  300. 

The  true  owner  of  the  property  in 
the  possession  of  a  common  carrier 
may  have  the  same  diverted  at  a  sta- 
tion on  the  route  betwees  the  ship- 
ping point  and  the  place  of  destina- 
tion while  it  is  in  transit,  but  may  be 
required  to  produce  the  bill  of  lading 
or  furnish  other  evidence  of  owner- 
ship to  entitle  him  to  this  right. 
Ryan  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co., 
(Minn.)    95  N.  W.  758. 

55.  Lake     Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

14 


National  Live-iStoek  Bank,  178  111. 
506,  13  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  1, 
revg.  59  111.  App.  451,  53  N.  E.  326; 
Western  Transp.  Co.  v.  Barber, 
supra;  Shellenberg  v.  Fremont,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  45  Neb.  487;  Harker  v.  De- 
ment, 9  Gill  (Md.)  7,  52  Am.  Dec. 
670;  Biddle  v.  Bond,  6  B.  &  S.  224; 
White  v.  Bartlett,  9  Bing.  382; 
Cheesman  v.  Exall,  6  Exch.  341; 
Dixon  v.  Yates,  27  Eng.  C.  L.  92. 

56.  Bates  v.  Stanton,  1  Duer  (N. 
Y.)  79;  Rosenfeld  v.  Express  Co.,  1 
Woods  (U.  S.)  131;  King  v.  Rich- 
ards, 6  Whart.  (Pa.)  418,  37  Am. 
Dec.  420;  Floyd  v.  Bovard,  6  W.  &  S. 
(Pa.)  75;  Hardman  v.  Will  cock,  9 
Bing.  382,  note.  Ompare  Kohn  v. 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  S.  C.  1,  34 
Am.  St.  Rep.  726;  Story  Bailm.  (9th 
Ed.)   §  582. 


220  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

Avhom  such  delivery  was  made."  The  general  rule  that  the  agent 
must  account  to  his  principal  and  cannot  set  up  the  jus  tertii,  nor 
in  any  way  dispute  his  title,  applies  to  the  common  carrier,  and 
the  carrier  must  deliver  according  to  the  shipper's  orders  or  the 
terms  of  the  bill  of  lading,  unless  the  true  owner,  whose  rights 
are  paramount  to  the  claims  of  all  others,  has  enforced  his  right 
to  the  possession  and  the  carrier  has  yielded  to  it.^  The  fact 
that  the  true  owner  of  the  goods  is  a  stranger  to  the  contract  of 
bailment  does  not  affect  his  right  to  recover  them.^ 

§  6.  Delivery  to  fraudulent  purchaser. 

If  a  carrier  delivers  goods  according  to  their  address  he  is  not 
responsible  for  the  fact  that  the  person  to  whom  they  are  addressed 
fraudulently  represented  himself  in  writing  or  orally  to  the  seller 
to  be  another  person  of  the  same  name,  or  to  be  a  merchant  of  good 
financial  credit,  and  bought  the  goods  in  the  name  of  such  merchant 
on  credit,  and  that  the  seller  is  swindled  out  of  the  goods ;  and  the 
seller  cannot  maintain  an  action  against  the  carrier  who  receives 
the  goods  and  carries  and  delivers  them  to  the  purchaser.®**    The 

57.  Wolfe  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  826;  Brasher  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
97  Mo.  473,  10  Am.  St.  Rep.  331,  37  12  Colo.  384;  NanBon  v.  Jacob,  12  Mb. 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  719.  App.   125,   93   Mo.   331;    Lake   Shore, 

58.  Thomas  v.  Northern  Pac.  Ex?.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Luce,  11  Ohio  Cir.  Ct. 
Co.,  73  Minn.  85,  75  N.  W.  1120,  4  Rep.  543,  1  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  145; 
Am.  Neg.  Rep.  504,  11  Am.  &  Eng.  Bush  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Mo. 
R.  Cas.  N.  S.  121;  Wells  v.  Ameri-  App.  62;  McKean  v.  Mclvor,  L.  R. 
can  Express  Co.,  supra;  Western  6  Exch.  36;  Hardman  v.  Booth,  32 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Barber,  supra;  Sheri-  L.  J.  Exch.  105;  Kingsford  v.  Merry, 
dan  V.  New  Quay  Co.,  4  C.  B.  N.  S.  26  L.  J.  Exch.  83 ;  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v. 
618,  93  E.  C.  L.  618;  Ogle  v.  Atkin-  Hertzberg,  17  Tex.  Civ.  App.  100,  42 
son,  5  Taunt.  759;  Browne  Carr.  221;  S.  W.  795;  Norwalk  Bank  v.  Adams 
Hutch.  Carr.  §  405.  Express  Co.,  4  Blatchf.    (U.  S.)    455, 

59.  Shellenberg    v.     Fremont,     etc.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,354. 

R.  Co.,  supra.  A   common   carrier   is   not   charge- 

GO.  Edmunds    v.    Merchants'    Des-  able  with   negligence  in  the  delivery 

patch  Transp.  Co.,  135  Mass.  283,  16  of  goods,  where  it  delivered  them  to 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  250;   Samuel  v.  the  man  to  whom  they  were  sent,   and 

Cheney,  135  Mass.  278,  46  Am.  Rep.  who  the  carrier  was  induced,  by  the 

467;  Dunbar  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.,  acts  of  the   shipper   in   dealing  with 

110  Mass.  26,  14  Am.  Rep.  576;  Bar-  him,  to  belierve,  was  the  man  to  whom 

ker  V.  Dinsmore,  72  Pa.  St.   427,  13  the  shipper  intended  to  send,  though 

Am.    Rep.    697;    The   Drew,    15    Fed.  he    was    insolvent    and    there   was    a 


TERMINATION   OF   LIABILITY. 


211 


fact  that  the  seller  was  induced  to  sell  by  fraud  makes  the  sale  void- 
able but  not  void,  and  the  carrier  is  entitled  to  regard  the  consignee 
as  the  true  owner  unless  actually  or  constructively  notified  to  the 
contrary.  Delivery  to  the  consignee  in  such  case  discharges  the 
carrier,  upon  the  principle  that  any  delivery,  valid  as  to  the  con- 
signee, is  a  defense  for  the  carrier  as  to  all  persons.®^  But  where 
a  common  carrier,  without  requiring  evidence  of  identity,  delivers 
to  a  stranger  goods  which  have  been  fraudulently  ordered  by  him 
in  the  name  of  a  fictitious  firm,  and  shipped  directed  to  the  firm, 
he  is  liable  to  the  consignor  for  their  value.®^  Where  by  means  of 
a  fictitious  order,  a  firm  is  induced  to  consign  valuable  merchandise 
to  a  person  whom  they  know  to  be  responsible,  the  carrier  is  liable 
for  loss  from  a  delivery  of  the  goods  to  another  person  claiming 
to  be  the  proper  consignee,  though  the  delivery  is  induced  by  false 
representations  to  the  carrier's  agent/^  And  where  a  carrier, 
after  notice  from  the  consignee  that  he  had  not  ordered  the  goods, 
delivered  them  to  one  who  had  wrongfully  ordered  them  in  the 
name  of  the  consignee,  it  was  liable  to  the  consignor  for  their 
value.^* 


reputable  merchant  of  the  same  name 
in  the  town.  Seibert  v.  Philadelphia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  435. 

61.  See  Delivery  must  be  made  to 
the  consignee  or  his  agent,  §  4,  ante. 

62.  Price  v.  Oswego,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
50  N.  Y.  213,  10  Am.  Rep.  475,  3 
Am.  Ry.  Rep.  325,  revg.  58  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  599;  Winslow  v.  Vermont,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  42  Vt.  700,  1  Am.  Rep.  355; 
Sword  V.  Young,  89  Tenn.  126;  Wey- 
and  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Iowa 
573,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  504;  Pacific 
Express  Co.  v.  Shearer,  160  111.  215, 
43  N.  E.  816;  Stephenson  v.  Hart,  4 
Bing.  476,  15  E.  C.  L.  47;  Wilson  v. 
Adams  Express  Co.,  27  Mo.  App.  360, 
43  Mo.  App.  659;  Ryder  v.  Burling- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Iowa  460.  Com- 
pare DufT  V.  Budd,  3  B.  &  B.  177,  7 
E.  C.  L.  399;  Henjrh  v.  I^ndon,  etc., 
E.  Co.,  L.  R.  5  Exoh.   51. 


63.  Oskamp  v.  Southern  Express 
Co.,    (Ohio)    55  N.  E.  13. 

An  express  company  is  not  relieved 
from  liability  for  delivering  a  pack- 
age of  money  to  a  person  other  than 
the  consignee  by  the  fact  that  the 
consignor  might  have  discovered  by 
the  exercise  of  due  care  that  the  or- 
der and  check  for  the  money  were 
forgeries.  Security  Trust  Co.  v. 
Wells  Fargo  and  Co.  Express,  81  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  426,  80  N.  Y.  Supp. 
830. 

64.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ft. 
Wayne  Electric  Co.,  (Ky.)  55  S.  W. 
918;  Bruhl  v.  Coleman,  113  Ga.  1102, 
39  S.  E.  481. 

The  omission  of  the  word  "  order  " 
after  the  name  of  the  consignee  in  a 
bill  of  lading  containing  a  provision 
that,  in  the  absence  of  such  word, 
the  carrier  might  deliver  without  re- 


212 


TEIE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


§  7.  Delivery  of  goods  sent  in  care  of  carrier's  local  agent. 

The  rule  in  New  York  and  some  other  jurisdictions,  where  goods 
are  delivered  to  a  carrier  directed  to  a  consignee  in  care  of  the 
carrier's  local  agent  at  the  termination  of  the  route  along  which 
the  carrier  is  to  transport  the  package,  is  that  a  delivery  to  the 
carrier's  agent  does  not  relieve  the  carrier  from  liability  in  case  of 
loss,  since  such  agent  does  not  receive  the  package  as  agent  of  the 
consignee.^^  In  other  jurisdictions  it  is  held  that  a  delivery  to 
such  agent  terminates  the  carrier's  responsibility  and  the  agent 
holds  the  goods  as  the  agent  of  either  the  consignor  or  the  con- 
signee, whoever  may  be  the  owner  of  the  goods.^^ 


quiring  the  production  of  the  bill 
of  lading,  did  not  exempt  the  carrier 
from  liability  for  a  misdelivery  of 
the  goods  to  a  complete  stranger. 
Marrus  v.  New  Haven  Steamboat  Co., 
30  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  431,  62  N.  Y. 
Supp.   474. 

65.  Russell  v.  Livingston,  16  N.  Y. 
516,  518,  revg.  19  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  346, 
wherein  the  court  said:  "Ordinarily 
the  address  of  a  package  to  the  care 
of  any  one  is  an  authority  to  the 
carrier  to  deliver  it  to  such  person; 
but  when  the  person  to  whom  it  is 
thus  addressed  is  the  agent  and 
principal  representative  of  the  car- 
rier himself,  at  the  point  where  the 
carriage  is  to  terminate,  it  may  be 
regarded  as  a  mere  expansion  of  the 
ordinary  direction  to  have  it  stopped 
at  the  place  on  the  route  where  that 
agent  is  in  charge  of  the  business. 
It  should  be  so  regarded;  for  there 
is  no  probable  reason  why  a  person 
sending  a  package  should  be  supposed 
to  choose  to  terminate  the  carrier's 
responsibility  and  substitute  that  of 
the  eairrier's  agent  when  by  such 
change  no  new  duty  would  be  cre- 
ated, and  the  package  would  be  dealt 
with  in  either  case  by  the  same  per- 
son and  in  the  same  way.  The  only 
object    in    giving    such    a    direction, 


which  could  be  supposed  would  be  to 
change  the  i-esponsibility  from  the 
carrier  to  the  agent  appointed  by  the 
carrier;  and  as  such  a  change  would 
usually  impair  the  security  of  the 
owner,  as  he  must  be  taken  generally 
to  know  more  of  the  carrier  whom 
he  employs  than  of  the  carrier's 
agent,  of  whom  he  will  commonly 
know  only  the  name,  it  would  be  act- 
ing against  the  natural  presumptions 
which  arise  from  the  situation  of  the 
parties  to  attribute  to  the  owner 
such  intention."  Compare  Bristol  v. 
Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  158,  holding  that  a  common 
carrier  is  discharged  from  liability, 
by  a  delivery  to  a  person  to  whose 
care  the  goods  are  directed,  though 
such  person  be  the  carrier's  agent. 
And  see  Piatt  v.  Wells,  2  Rob.  (N. 
Y.)   101,  26  How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)   442. 

That  the  package  is  addressed  to 
himself  or  his  agent  does  not  lessen 
the  liability  and  duty  to  deliver  of 
the  carrier  who  receives  the  package 
for  delivery,  there  being  no  under- 
standing that  he  shall  hold  the 
package  for  the  carrier's  convpnience. 
Bennett  v.  Northern  Pac.  Exp.  Co.,  12 
Or.  49.  See  also  United  States  Ex- 
press Co.  v.  Rush,  24  Ind.  403. 

66.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  v.  Prewitt, 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY.  213 

§  8.  Consignor's  right  to  change  of  consignee. 

Where  a  common  carrier  receives  goods  for  transportation  and 
delivery  to  the  consignee  without  any  qualification  or  restriction, 
the  consignor  parts  with  the  goods  and  all  control  over  them  and 
the  delivery  to  the  carrier  is  a  delivery  to  the  consignee's  agent  and 
the  consignor  cannot,  by  a  subsequent  direction  to  the  carrier, 
prevent  their  delivery  to  the  consignee,  unless  such  facts  are  sho^vn 
as  will  justify  the  stoppage  of  the  goods  in  transitu;  and  where,  by 
subsequent  direction  of  the  consignor,  the  carrier  delivers  the  goods 
to  another  person,  it  is  liable  for  conversion."  But  where  the 
delivery  to  the  carrier  is  qualified,  restricted,  or  conditional,  as, 
for  example,  where  the  carrier  is  notified  by  the  shipper,  after 
delivery  to  it  of  the  goods,  not  to  deliver  them  to  the  consignee 
until  he  presents  the  bill  of  lading  and  a  draft  drawn  upon  him, 
the  delivery  to  the  carrier  is  not  a  delivery  to  the  consignee,  and 
the  consig-nee,  on  refusal  to  comply  with  the  condition,  acquires 
no  right,  or  title  to  the  property,  and  a  delivery  by  the  carrier  to 
the  consignee  under  such  circumstances  renders  the  carrier  liable 
to  the  consignor.^  The  consignor  under  such  circumstances  may 
change  the  consignee  while  the  goods  are  in  transit,*^^  and  has  the 
same  right  to  change  their  destination,  after  the  goods  have  passed 
into  the  hands  of  a  connecting  carrier  by  taking  a  new  bill  of  lad 
ing.^*  The  carrier  also  has  the  right  under  such  circumstances 
to  change  the  destination  of  the  property  before  it  has  been  de- 

46  Ala.  63,  7  Am.  Eep.  586;  Houston,  this  will  not  avail  in  a  suit  by  the 

etc.,   R.   Co.  V.  Hogg,  2   Tex.   Unrep.  carrier  against  the  consignee.     Phila- 

Cas.    544;    Edwards   v.   Cheraw,   etc.,  delphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wireman,  88 

R.  Co.,  32  S.  C.  117;  Taylor  v.  Grand  Pa.  St.   264. 

Trunk  R.  Co.,  24  U.  C.  C.  P.  582.  68.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hart- 

67.  Bailey  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  well,  99  Ky.  436,  18  Ky.  L.  Rep.  745, 

49   N.   Y.   70;    Philadelphia,   etc.,   R.  36  S.  W.  183,  4  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

Co.  V.  Wireman,  88  Pa.  St.  264.     See  N.    S.   550,    38   S.   W.   1041;    Cayuga 

also  Wade  v.  Hamilton,  30  Ga.  450.  County  Nat.  Bank  v.  Daniels,  47  N. 

Where,  having  given  such  subsequent  Y.  631;   Bank  of  Rochester  v.  Jones, 

direction,    the    carrier    notwithstand-  4  N.  Y.  501,  55  Am.  Dec.  290. 

ing,   delivered  the  goods  to  the  con-  69.  See  cases  cited  under  last  pre- 

signee,  and  in  consequence  thereof  the  ceding  note. 

consignor   sues   and    obtains    a   judg-  70.  Sutherland    v.     Pooria     Second 

ment  a!?i'"nst  the  carrier   in   another  Nat.  Bank,  78  Ky.  250,  6  Am.  &  Eng. 

state  for  a  misdelivery  of  the  goods,  R.    Cas.    368. 


214  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

livered,  after  a  bill  of  lading  has  been  issued  therefor,  provided 
the  bill  has  not  been  sent  to  the  consignee  or  some  one  for  him;^ 
and  even  whore  the  first  consignee  has  accepted  bills  on  tho 
strength  of  the  cousigumentJ^  Where  a  bill  of  lading  has  been 
issued  by  the  carrier  and  forwarded  to  the  consignee,  if  the  carrier 
issue  another  it  will  subject  itself  to  liability  on  both."  Where 
goods  are  shipped  to  a  factor  to  sell  the  same  and  account  to  the 
consignor  at  a  certain  price,  the  goods  to  remain  the  property  of 
the  consignor  until  paid  for,  the  consignee  is  entitled,  on  present- 
ing the  bill  of  lading,  to  receive  the  goods,  from  the  carrier,  so 
long  as  the  contract  remains  in  force,  though  the  consignor  notified 
the  carrier  not  to  deliver  the  goods,  and  therefore  the  consignor 
cannot  maintain  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  conversion  of 
the  goods  so  delivered  to  the  consignee.^*  Where  a  factor  has  made 
advances  or  incurred  liability  on  the  strength  of  a  consignment, 
the  consignor  has  no  right  by  any  subsequent  order  to  suspend 
or  control  the  sale,  except  as  to  such  surplus  as  is  not  necessary 
for  the  reimbursement  of  the  advances ;  so  that  where  the  destina- 
tion of  such  a  consignment  was  changed  to  another  person,  who 
knew  of  the  factor's  claim,  the  latter  was  in  no  better  attitude  to 
dispute  the  factor's  right  than  the  consignor  himself.^^  But  it 
has  been  held,  to  the  contrary,  that  a  debtor  who  ships  goods  to 
his  factor  and  creditor  for  sale,  the  proceeds  to  be  applied  to  the 
satisfaction  of  his  debt,  and  sends  the  bill  of  lading  to  such  factor, 
may  afterwards  change  the  shipment  to  another  person  without 
making  the  carrier  liable  to  the  first  consignee^® 

71.  Jones  v.  Earl,  37  Cal,  630,  99  40    111.    281.      See,    also    Delivery    to 
Am.  Dec.  338,  and  notice  to  the  agent  holder  of  bill  of  lading,  §  9,  post. 
of  the  carrier,   in  possession   of  the  73.  Hubbersty    v.    Ward,    8    Exch. 
goods,   of  the  change   binds   the  car-  330.     See,  Delivery  to  holder  of  bill 
rier;     Blanchard    v.    Page,    8    Gray  of  lading,  §  9,  post. 

(Mass.)      285;     Strahom     v.     Union  74.  Lester  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

Stock  Yard,  etc.,  Co.,  43  111.  424,  92  73  Hun   (N.  Y.)    398,  26  N.  Y.  Supp 

Am.  Dec.  142;   Thompson  v.  Trail,  2  206. 

C.  &.  P.  334,  12  E.  C.  L.  155 ;  Mitchel  75.  Nelson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

V.  Ede,  11  Ad.  &  El.  888,  39  E.  C.  L.  2  111.  App.  180. 

260;    Ruck  v.  Hatfield,   5   B,  A  Aid.  76.  Chaffe    v.   Mississippi,    etc.,    R. 

632,  7  E.  C.  L.  260.     See  Duplicate  Co.,  59  Miss.  182,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

bills  of  lading,  19,   post.  Cas.    426.      Even    where    the    bill    of 

72.  Lewis  v.   Galena,   etc.,   R.  Co.,  lading    had    been    made    out    in    the 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


215 


§  9.  Delivery  to  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading. 

A  bill  of  lading  is  the  representative  or  symbol  of  the  property 
mentioned  therein,  and  its  transfer  and  delivery  without  indorse- 
ment or  when  properly  indorsed  and  delivered,  when  indorsement 
is  necessary,  operates  as  a  constructive  transfer  and  delivery  of 
the  property  itself,  and  the  consignor  loses  the  control  of  the  goods 
by  such  transfer.^  Therefore,  when  a  bill  of  lading  has  been 
issued,  it  being  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  deliver  to  the  owner  of 
the  goods  or  the  person  entitled  to  receive  them,  delivery  must  be 
made  to  the  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading,  and  the  carrier  is  liable 
for  a  delivery  otherwise  than  in  accordance  with  the  bill  of  lading, 
or  to  a  person  who  was  not  authorized  to  receive  the  goods,  al- 
though he  may  be  the  consigneeJ^  A  common  carrier  delivers  at 
its  peril  goods  to  the  consignee  without  a  bill  of  lading  either  made 
or  indorsed  to  himJ*     It  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  ascertain 


name  of  the  factor  and  forwarded  to 
him,  and  the  object  was  to  pay  a 
debt  of  the  consignor  to  the  consignee, 
it  was  held  that  a  delivery  to  the 
carrier  was  not  a  delivery  to  the 
consignee,  and  that  the  property  was 
liable  in  the  hands  of  the  carrier,  to 
attachment  by  the  consignor's  credi- 
tors. Bonner  v.  Marsh,  10  Smed.  & 
M.  (Miss.)  376,  48  Am.  Dec.  754; 
Dickman  v.  Williams,  50  Miss.  500. 

77.  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  New  York 
Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
160,  32  N.  Y.  Supp.  604;  Robert  C. 
White  Live  Stock,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  Mo.  App.  330; 
Storey  v.  Hershey,  19  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
485,  but  when  the  parties  to  a  trans- 
fer of  a  bill  of  lading  know  that  the 
property  has  been  taken,  prior  to  the 
transfer,  by  legal  process,  from  the 
possession  of  the  carrier,  the  indorse- 
ment and  delivery  of  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing cannot  operate  as  a  transfer  of 
the  possession  of  the  property.  See 
also  Dickson  v.  Merchants'  Elevator 
Co.,  44  Mo.  App.  498. 


78.  First  National  Bank  v.  North- 
ern Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  28  Wash.  439,  68 
Pac.  965;  Merchants'  Despatch,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Merriam,  111  Ind.  5;  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.  V.  Stern,  119  Pa.  St.  24, 
4  Am.  St.  Rep.  626;  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.  V.  Miller,  32  111.  App.  259; 
Young  V.  East  Alabama  Ry.  Co.,  80 
Ala.  100;  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
National  Live  Stock  Bank,  59  111. 
App.  451;  Forbes  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  133  Mass.  154,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  76;  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
ston, 45  Neb.  57,  63  N.  W.  144. 
Where  the  bill  of  lading  is  attached 
to  a  draft,  which  is  accepted  and  in- 
dorsed by  the  consignee  and  paid 
with  money  advanced  by  a  third 
party  on  the  security  of  the  bill  of 
lading,  the  carrier  is  liable  to  the 
holder  of  the  bill  of  lading,  where 
the  shipper  procured  a  delivery  to 
himself  while  the  goods  were  in 
transit.  Wells  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
32  Fed.  51. 

79.  Gates  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
42  Neb.  379,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 


216 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


whether  a  bill  of  lading  has  been  issued,  and,  if  it  has,  to  deliver 
only  to  the  party  producing  such  bill  properly  indorsed,  where  in- 
dorsement is  necessary.^**  The  delivery  of  goods  to  a  carrier  will 
not  be  held  to  be  a  delivery  to  the  consignee,  where  by  taking  the 
bill  of  lading  to  his  own  order  the  shipper  reserves  to  himself  the 
power  of  disposing  of  the  property;  and,  though  a  bill  of  lading 
is  fraudulently  used,  a  bank  cashing  a  draft  with  the  bill  attached 
acquires  a  good  title  to  the  property  in  question,  and  is  entitled  to 
receive  the  goods,  and  the  carrier  cannot  defend  by  showing  de- 
livery to  another.^  Under  the  New  York  statute  it  is  an  offense 
for  a  carrier  to  deliver  any  property  carried  by  it  without  a  pro- 
duction and  surrender  of  the  bill  of  lading,  or  unless  it  bears  on  its 
face  the  words  "  not  negotiable."  Under  this  statute  it  has  been 
held  that  the  carrier  is  liable  where  it  delivers  the  goods  without 
requiring  a  surrender  of  the  bill  of  lading  where  the  bill  has  not 
the  words  mentioned  written  across  its  face,  although  they  are 
written  across  the  back.^^  But  where  a  carrier  issues  a  bill  of 
lading  which  requires  it  to  take  up  such  bill  on  the  delivery  of  the 
goods,  but  delivers  the  goods,  on  the  order  of  the  consignee,  with- 
out taking  up  the  bill,  which  is  afterwards  assigned  to  a  third 
person  for  a  valuable  consideration,  such  third  person  cannot  re- 
cover from  the  carrier  for  a  conversion  of  the  goods,  since  the  bill 

218  60  N.  W.  583,  holding,  also,  tliat  rebates  being  improperly  allowed  to 
a  common  carrier  which  delivers  the  shipper  does  not  affect  the  right 
goods  to  a  purchaser  from  the  con-  of  the  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading  as 
signee,  who  is  the  agent  of  the  owner,  against  the  carrier, 
at  the  direction  of  the  consignee,  is  81.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  South- 
not  liable  to  the  owner  upon  the  pur-  ern  Bank,  41  111.  App,  287.  But  a 
chaser's  failure  to  pay  therefor,  carrier  is  not  liable  to  the  transferee 
although  the  bill  of  lading  is  not  sur-  of  a  bill  of  lading  on  account  of  the 
Tendered  to  the  carrier  before  de-  delivery  of  the  goods  called  for  to  the 
livery,  where  it  is  not  assigned  to  consignee  by  agents  of  the  transferee, 
any  one  by  the  owner.  See  also  who  were  ignorant  of  the  transfer, 
Schwartzchild  &  Co.  v.  Savannah,  while  it  was  at  a  compress  operated 
etc.  R.  Co.,  76  Mo.  App.  623,  1  Mo.  by  the  transferee.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
A   Repr.  588.  Co.  v.  McFadden,  89  Tex.  138,  33  S. 

80.  Merchants'    Cotton    Press,   etc.,  W.  853. 

Co.  v.  Insurance  Co.  of  North   Amer-  82.  Syracuse    First    Nat.    Bank    v. 

ica,  151  U.  S.  368,  and  the  fact  that  New  York  Cent,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Hun 

the'  contract  between  the  carrier  and  (N.  Y.)  160,  3S  N.  Y.  Supp,  604;  N. 

the   shipper   is  illegal  on  account  of  Y".  Penal  Code,  §  633. 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY.  217 

when  received  by  him  was  a  spent  bill,  and  did  not  operate  to 
pass  title  to  the  goods.^^  And  the  fact  that  a  common  carrier 
negligently  omitted  to  take  up  the  bill  of  lading  upon  which  an 
endorsement  "  non-negotiable  "  did  not  appear,  when  it  delivered 
the  goods  represented  thereby,  although  it  was  in  fact  non-negoti- 
able, and  therefore,  the  carrier  may  have  become  technically  guilty 
of  a  violation  of  the  statute,  does  not  entitle  a  subsequent  bona 
fide  transferee  of  the  bill  of  lading,  which  has  been  fraudulently 
altered  so  as  to  make  it  negotiable,  to  maintain  an  action  against 
the  carrier  to  recover  damages  for  his  neglect,  for  the  reason  that 
the  forgery  was  not  the  proximate  result  of  such  neglect,  but  was 
the  independent  and  felonious  aot  of  another  person.^*  It  is  no 
defense  to  a  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  goods  to  the  bona  fide 
holder  of  a  bill  of  lading  therefor,  that  the  same  were  attached 
and  seized  for  a  debt  of  the  consignor,  where  such  attachment  and 
seizure  were  made  possible  by  a  change  of  destination  of  the  goods 
under  an  arrangement  between  the  consignor,  the  carrier,  and  a 
third  person,  which  was  not  binding  upon  the  holder  of  such  bill." 
Where  a  shipper  takes  a  bill  of  lading  for  the  delivery  of  goods 
to  himself,  the  carrier  is  liable  for  delivery  to  another  person  on 
his  mere  presentation  of  the  bill  of  lading  unindorsed.^®     But  if 

83.  National  Oonmiercial  Bank  v.  tiff  has  wrongfully  delivered  up  the 
Lackawanna  Transp.  Co.,  172  N.  Y.  cargo  of  peaa  to  defendant  in  viola- 
596,  64  N.  E.  1123,  affg.  59  App.  Div.  tion  of  N.  Y.  Penal  Code,  §  633, 
(N.  Y.)  270,  6  N.  Y.  Supp.  396;  Col-  forbidding  the  warehouseman  from 
gate  V.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  delivering  to  another  than  the  holder 
120,  affg.  31  Hun    (N.  Y.)    300.  of  a  warehouse  receipt  issued  by  him 

84.  MaJrs  v.  Baltimore,  ete.,  R.  Co.,  the  property  covered  by  it,  is  un- 
175  N.  Y.  409,  67  N.  E.  901.  A  ware-  available.  Burnham  v.  Cape  Vincent 
houseman    who    pays    a   bank    which  Seed  Co.,  142  N.  Y.  169. 

deposits  a  draft  secured  by   a  ware-  85.  Western   &  A.   R.   Co.   v.   Ohio 

houee    receipt    of    a   cargo    of    peas.  Valley  Bkg.  &  T.  Co.,  107  Ga.  512,  15 

which  has  been  accepted  by  the  con-  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  839,  33  S. 

signee,  upon  the  claim  that  the  con-  E.  821. 

signee    after  accepting   the  draft   has  86.  Weyand    v.    Atchison,    etc.,    R. 

without    authority    taken    possession  Co.,  75  Iowa  573,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  504, 

of   the   peas    and   obtains   a   transfer  1  L.  R.  A.  650;   Douglass  v.  People' 

from    the    bank,    together    with    the  Bank,  86  Ky.  176,  5  S.  W.  420,  9  Am. 

warehouse     receipt,     may     bring     an  St.  Rep.  276,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

action  on  the  draft  against  the  con-  511. 
signee;    and   the   defense   that   plain- 


218  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

the  bill  of  lading  is  produced,  properly  indorsed,  the  carrier  is 
protected  by  it  from  liability  for  delivery  to  the  holder,  although 
the  party  producing  it  may  have  no  right  to  it  and  may  have 
wrongfully  obtained  possession  of  it."  So,  if  the  carrier  delivers 
uopn  the  production  of  one  of  two  bills  of  lading  indorsed  to  differ- 
ent persons.^  The  rule  is  based  upon  the  familiar  principle  of 
law  that  where  one  of  two  innocent  parties  must  suffer,  the  loss 
should  fall  upon  him  who  enabled  the  third  person  to  commit  the 
wrong.^^  But  the  rule  does  not  apply  where  the  carrier  has  issued 
two  bills  of  lading,  and  delivery  is  made  to  one  presenting  an  un- 
indorsed bill,  which  does  not  vest  the  holder  with  any  apparent 
ownership.^*  And  where  a  bill  of  lading  has  been  issued  for  prop- 
erty not  actually  delivered,  by  an  agent  having  no  authority  to 
issue  bills  except  on  receipt  of  property  for  transportation,  and 
has  been  transferred  by  the  shipper  to  one  who  has,  in  good  faith, 
discounted  a  draft  drawn  upon  the  consignee,  the  carrier  is  liable 
to  the  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading.®^  A  bill  of  lading,  while  not 
negotiable  in  the  sense  that  a  bill  of  exchange  or  promissory  note 
is  negotiable,  where  the  purchaser  need  not  look  beyond  the  instru- 
ment itself,*^  is  negotiable  in  the  sense  that  it  may  be  transferred 
by  indorsement  and  delivery,  but  the  transferee,  however  innocent, 

87.  Douglas  v.  Peoples  Bank,  Rep.  440,  7  Cent.  Repr.  822;  Sioux 
supra.  Compare  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  First  Nat.  Bank 
r'o.  V.  Moline  Plow  Co.,  13  Ind.  App.  of  Fremont,  10  Neb.  556,  35  Am.  Rep. 
225.  488;    Armour   v.    Michigan   Cent.   R, 

88.  Fearon  v.  Bowers,  1  Smith's  Co.,  65  N.  Y.  Ill;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
L.  C.  792.  Co.  V.  Larned,  103  111.  293;  Brooke  v. 

89.  Brooks  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  Pa.  St. 
Co.,  108  Pa.  St.  529,  56  Am.  Rep.  529.  To  the  contrary  see  note  106 
235;  American  Nat.  Bank  v.  Greorgia  N.   Y.   195. 

R.    Co.,  96  Ga.  665,  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  92.  Friedlander   v.    Texas,   etc.,    R. 

Cas.  N.   S.   618,  23   S.   E.  898;    Wil-  Co.,   130   U.   S.  424,   32   L.   Ed.   994; 

mington,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kitchin,   91  Pollard  v.  Vinton,  105  U.  S.  8,  26  L. 

N.  C.  39.  Ed.    998;    Shaw   v.    Merchants'    Nat. 

90.  Weyand  &  Atohison,  etc.,  R.  Bank,  101  U.  S.  557,  25  L.  Ed.  892; 
Co.,  75  Iowa  573,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  504,  Stollenwerck  v.  Thacher,  115  Mass. 
revg.  30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  102,  33  24;  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lowe,  101 
N.  W.  133;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ga.  320,  28  S.  E,  867,  10  Am.  &  Eng. 
Lamed,  103  111.  293.  R.  Cas,  N.  S.  398;   Gumey  v.  Beihr- 

91.  Bank  of  Batavia  v.  New  York,  etnd,  3  EL  t  BI.  622,  633. 
etc,  R.  Co.,  106  N.  Y.  195,  60  Am. 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY.  0^9 

takes  only  the  rights  which  the  transferee  had.®^  If,  however,  a 
custom  or  usage  exists  for  a  carrier  at  the  point  of  destination  to 
deliver  to  a  consignee  goods  consigned  to  him  by  a  bill  of  lading, 
not  containing  the  words  "  or  order,"  without  requiring  the  pro- 
duction of  the  bill  of  lading,  such  a  delivery  is  good  as  against 
a  person  to  whom  the  consignee  has  previously  delivered  the  bill 
of  lading  as  security  for  an  advance  made  by  him  to  the  con- 
signee.*^ It  is  no  excuse  for  a  delivery  to  the  wrong  person  that 
the  indorsee  of  the  bill  of  lading  was  unknown  to  the  carrier  and 
notice  of  the  arrival  could  not  be  given,  or  that  he  delayed  too  long 
before  calling  for  his  goods;  diligent  inquiry  for  the  consignee, 
or  indorsee  of  a  bill  of  lading  for  delivery  to  order,  is  required  of 
the  carrier,  and  if  either  cannot  be  found,  the  duty  of  the  carrier 
is  to  retain  the  goods  until  they  are  claimed,  or  to  store  them  in  a 
reasonably  safe  place  for  and  on  accoimt  of  their  owner.  It  has 
no  right,  under  any  circumstances,  to  deliver  to  a  stranger.^ 

§  10.  Carrier  entitled  to  demand  bill  of  lading. 

The  consignee  is  presumptively  the  owner  of  the  goods,  and  a  de- 
livery to  him,  without  notice  to  the  contrary,  will  discharge  the 
carrier.*^  If  the  party  who  claims  the  goods  is  not  the  consignee, 
and  even  where  he  is  the  consignee,  the  carrier  is  entitled  to  de- 
mand the  production  of  the  bill  of  lading  in  order  to  obtain  posses- 
sion of  the  goods,  and  for  its  own  security,  because  of  the  assigna- 
bility of  bills  of  lading  whereby  all  rights  in  the  goods  may  be 
transferred  to  a  stranger,  should  require  it  to  be  presented  before 
making  delivery  either  to  the  consignee  or  the  holder  of  the  bill.** 

93.  Merchants'  Bank  v.  Union  R.,  95.  The  Thames,  14  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
etc.,  Co.,  69  N.  Y.  374;  Pollard  v.  98;  Galloway  v.  Hughes,  1  Conk- 
Vinton,  105  U.  S.  7;  Lallande  v.  His  Adm.  96.  See  Laches  of  Holder  of 
Creditors,  42  La.  Ann.  705,  45  Am.  &  bill  of  lading,  §  13  post. 

Eng.  R.  Cas.   301;   Douglass  v.  Peo-  96.  Sweet    v.    Barney,    23    N.    Y. 

pies  Bank,  86  Ky.  176,  5  S.  W.  420;  335;   Lawrence  v.  Minturn,   17  How. 

Empire  Transp.  Co.  v.  Steele,  70  Pa.  (N.   Y.),    100;    O'Dougherty   v.    Bos- 

et.    188.  ton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Thomp.  &  C.   (N. 

94.  Forbes  v.   Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Y.)  477.    See  also  §  4,  ante. 

133  Mass.  154.     See  §  20,  post.     See  97.  Bass  v.   Glover,   63   Ga.   745,   1 

also  Richardson  v.  Goddard,  23  How.      Am.    &    Eng.   R.    Cas.    277;    Finn    v. 
(U.  S.)   28.  Western    R.    Corp.,    102    Mass.    283. 


220 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


This  is  a  reasonable  regulation  necessary  to  protect  the  carrier 
from  any  loss,  although  the  carrier  may  only  be  entitled  to  a 
receipt  after  being  shown  the  bill  of  lading  and  may  not  require 
the  holder  to  surrender  the  bill.^^  For  the  carrier  will  be  liable 
to  a  ho7ia  fide  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading  if  it  delivers  the  goods 
to  the  consignee  after  he  has  assigned  the  bill  of  lading.^'  The 
statute  in  New  York  makes  it  the  duty  of  a  carrier  not  to  deliver 
goods  except  upon  production  and  cancellation  of  the  bills  of 
lading,  and  for  a  delivery  to  a  consignee  without  the  production 
of  the  bill  of  lading,  which  provided  for  a  delivery  to  him,  but 
Avhich  he  had  in  the  meantime  indorsed  and  negotiated,  the  carrier 
is  liable  to  the  holder  of  the  bill  as  for  a  conversion  of  the  prop- 
erty.'- And  it  is  liable  to  the  shipper  for  the  loss  sustained  by  him, 
Avhere  it  delivers  goods  to  the  consignee,  in  violation  of  instruc- 
tions of  the  shipper  not  to  deliver  without  a  bill  of  lading.^ 

§  11.  Carrier's  liability  to  innocent  purchaser  of  bill  of  lading. 

A  carrier,  in  delivering  goods  to  a  party  claiming  them,  with- 
out requiring  him  to  produce  the  bill  of  lading,  always  assumes 
the  risk,  of  the  bill's  having  been  previously  transferred  to  an  in- 
nocent purchaser.'  Where  a  common  carrier  delivers  goods  en- 
trusted to  him  for  carriage,  without  production  of  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing describing  the  goods,  it  is  liable  in  trover  for  their  value  to  a 
bona  fide  holder  of  such  bill,  taken  for  value,  before  the  delivery 
of  the  goods  at  destination;*  even  where  it  delivered  the  goods 

Compare    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Mc-  500;     Colgate    v.    Pennsylvania    Co., 

Cown    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    25    S.    W.  102  N.  Y.  130;  Bank  of  Commerce  v. 

435_  Bissell,  72  N.  Y.  615. 

Where   no    bills    of    lading    are    is-  2.  Foggan   v.   Lake   Shore,   etc.,   R. 

sued,   the  carrier   is   justified   in   de-  Co.,  16  N.  Y.  Supp.  25. 

livering   the   goods   to   the   consignee  3.  Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v.    Stern, 

without  the  production  of  receipts  or  119  Pa.  St.  24,  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  626; 

other   evidences   of   ownership    issued  Gates    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    43 

to  the  consignor.     Schlichting  v.  Chi-  Neb.  379,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  218; 

cac^o,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.   (Iowa),  96  N.  W.  Midland  Nat.  Bank  v.  Missouri,  etc., 


R.  Co.,  1  Mo.  App.  Rep.  417. 


959. 

98.  Dvvyer  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  4.  Peoria  Bank  v.  Northern  R.  Co., 
Tex.  707.  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  461.  58  N.  H.   203;    Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

99.  See   §    11.  ^-  Adams,  49  Tex.  748,  30  Am.  Rep. 
1.  Furman   v.   Union   Pac.   R.   Co.,  116. 

106  N.  Y.  579,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY.  221 

to  the  shipper  at  an  intermediate  point.^  But  it  is  not  liable 
where  the  transfer  of  the  bill  takes  place  after  the  delivery  to  the 
consignee,  since  the  innocent  purchaser  takes  only  such  title  as  his 
transferee  had,  and  the  latter's  title  had  been  extinguished  by 
delivery.®  A  railroad  company  which  makes  one  of  a  firm  which 
is  almost  the  only  consignee  of  goods  delivered  at  a  station  its 
agent  at  such  station,  charged  with  the  responsibility  of  the  busi- 
ness as  between  the  company  and  the  firm,  is  liable  to  an  innocent 
purchaser  of  a  bill  of  lading  for  goods  consigned  to  such  firm, 
which  have  been  delivered  to  it  without  surrender  of  the  bill  of 
lading.'^ 

§  12.  Laches  of  holder  of  bill  of  lading. 

Laches  on  the  part  of  the  holder  of  a  bill  of  lading  cannot  be 
assumed  from  delay  by  the  holder  in  presenting  it  and  demanding 
delivery  of  the  goods,  unless  by  reason  of  the  delay  the  carrier 
may  have  lost  a  remedy  or  could  not  protect  itself.*  And  a 
carrier  cannot  avoid  its  obligation  under  a  bill  calling  for  de- 
livery to  the  shipper's  order,  to  deliver  the  shipment  to  an  indorsee 
for  value  of  the  bill  upon  presentation  thereof,  by  a  custom  of  such 
carrier  to  deliver  the  property  to  the  consignee  after  six  days, 
if  the  indorsee  was  without  notice  that  the  carrier  had  acted 
under  such  custom,  although  he  may  have  been  'aware  of  the 
custom.®  But  the  holder  of  a  bill  of  lading  may  lose  his  rights 
by  negligence,  as  where  a  bank,  to  which  is  delivered  for  collection 
a  draft,  together  with  a  bill  of  lading  (requiring  notice  to  the 
drawer)  for  a  carload  of  feed  issued  by  a  transportation  com- 
pany, which  permits  the  drawee  to  pay  the  draft  by  discounting 

5.  Ratzer  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  112,  32  N.  Y.  Supp.  604;  Barber  v. 
Co.,  64  Minn.  245,  66  N.  W.  988,  4  Meyerstein,  L.  R.  4  H.  L.  317,  L.  R. 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Caa.  N.  S.  55.  2  C.  P.  38,  holding  that  notice  is  not 

6.  Alabama  Nat.  Bank  v.  Mobile,  necessary,  and  that  only  a  failure  of 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Mo.  App.  284.  ordinary  prudence   In  completing  his 

7.  Walters  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Ck>.,  security  would  amount  to  laches. 

56  Fed.  369,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  9.  Midland  Nat.  Bank  v.  Miasouri 

162.  Pac.   R.   Co.,   132  Mo.  492,   2   Am.   & 

8.  First  Nat.  Bank  of  Syracuse  v.  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  N.  S.  586,  33  S.  W. 
New  York  Cent,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Hun  521. 

(N.   Y.),    160,   66   St.   Rep.    (N.   Y.) 


222  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

liis  draft  on  a  third  person  attached  to  the  bill  of  lading,  gave  na 
notice  to  the  railroad  company  that  it  held  the  bill  of  lading  and  the 
feed  was  delivered  by  the  carrier  to  one  to  whom  the  drawer  con- 
signed it.  The  bank  in  such  case  cannot  recover  from  the  rail- 
road company.^"  While  the  assignee  or  indorsee  of  a  bill  of  lading 
may,  by  his  laches,  lose  his  right  to  claim  the  goods  from  an  in- 
nocent purchaser,  by  permitting  the  property  to  remain  under  tlio 
control  and  apparent  ownership  of  his  assignor  or  endorser,  the 
transfer  of  the  bill  of  lading  passes  the  complete  title  to  the 
assignee  or  endorsee,  and  he  is  not  required  to  take  possession 
of  the  property  immediately  upon  its  arrival,  or  to  give  notice 
to  the  carrier  or  warehouseman  in  charge  of  it.^^ 

§  13.  Goods  received  from  connecting  carrier. 

It  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier  to  ascertain  whether  a  bill  of  lading 
"was  delivered  to  the  shipper,  and  if  so,  to  detain  the  property  until 
demanded  by  one  claiming  under  that  title;  if  delivery  is  made 
without  it,  he  runs  the  risk  of  showing  a  delivery  in  accordance 
with  its  instructions.  If  the  owner  or  consignor  has  placed  a 
direction  upon  the  property,  showing  where  it  is  to  be  trans- 
ported, and  obtained  a  bill  of  lading  for  it,  he  has  a  right  to 
assume  Uiat  delivery  will  only  be  made  in  accordance  with  the 
terms  of  the  bill,  and  the  duty  of  the  carrier  is  only  thereby  dis- 
charged.^ The  contract  contained  in  and  evidenced  by  the  re- 
ceipt or  bill  of  lading  binds  each  and  every  one  of  the  connecting 
carriers  who  accept  the  goods  and  transport  them  over  its  line," 
and  they  are  charged  with  knowledge  of  the  contents  of  the  bill  of 
lading."  A  carrier  receiving  goods  from  another  carrier  is, 
therefore,  liable  for  a   delivery  to  the  wrong  person  without  a 

10.  National  Bank  v.  Philadelphia,  13.  Babcock  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  163  Pa.  St.  467,  61  Am.  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  497;  Maghee  v,  Cam- 
£  Eng.  R.  Cas.  162,  30  Atl.  223.  den,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  514;  Halli- 

11.  Farmers',  etc.,  Nat.  Bank  v.  day  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.  R.  Co.,  74  Mo. 
Logan,  74  N.  Y.  568;   Forbes  v.  Bos-  159. 

ton,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    133    Mass.    154,    9  14.  City    Bank    v.    Rome,    etc.,    R. 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  78.  Co.,  44  N.  Y.  136;   Howard  v.  Shep- 

12.  Furman  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  ard,  9  M.  Gr.  &  S.  296;  Tyndale  V. 
106  N.  Y.  579,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  Taylor,  4  El.  &  Bl.  219;  Colgate  T. 
500.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  120. 


TERMINATION  OF   LIABILITY.  225 

production  bj  him  of  the  bill  of  lading,  where  one  has  been  issued, 
and  is  not  excused  by  the  fact  that  such  delivery  was  made  in  ac- 
cordance with  papers  received  from  the  preceding  carrier  in  which 
a  different  consignee  from  the  one  in  the  bill  of  lading  is  named/* 
The  contrary,  however,  has  been  held  where  the  carrier  which 
made  the  delivery  had  no  notice  of  the  bill  of  lading,  or  the  fact 
that  it  had  been  issued,  and  was  ignorant  of  the  true  ownership 
of  the  goods."  The  initial  carrier  is  the  agent  of  the  consignor 
in  forwarding  goods  and  delivering  them  to  a  connecting  line," 
but  such  agency  does  not  relieve  the  connecting  carrier  from  lia- 
bility for  failure  to  demand  the  production  and  surrender  of  the 
bill  of  lading  before  delivery  of  the  goods,  when  it  knows,  or 
ought  to  have  known,  that  a  bill  of  lading  had  been  issued  and 
was  outstanding.^^ 

§  13a.  Where  stoppage  in  transitu  is  provided, 

"Where  a  carload  of  lumber  was  shipped  under  a  waybill  pro- 
viding for  stoppage  en  route  at  a  planing  mill,  and  delivery  to 
the  planing  mill  company,  that  the  lumber  might  be  planed  and 
then  reshipped  to  destination,  and  the  lumber  was  destroyed  by 
fire  while  at  the  planing  mill,  it  was  then  in  the  possession  of 
the  plaintiff  or  his  agent,  the  planing  mill  company,  so  that  de- 
fendant's liability  was  terminated  for  the  time  being,  and  it  was 
not  liable  for  the  destruction  of  the  lumber  without  its  fault" 

§  14.  Stoppage  in  transitu  as  a  defense. 

The  right  of  stoppage  in  transitu  is  defeated  by  the  transfer 
of  a  bill  of  lading  to  a  bona  fide  indorsee  before  the  right  of  stop- 

15.  Funnan  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  Townsend,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Wash.  595, 
106  N.  Y.  579,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  419;  Wells  v. 
500;  Alderman  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  115  Thomas,  27  Mo.  17,  72  Am.  Dec.  228; 
Mass.  233;  Ratzer  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  Briggs  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Allen 
R.  Co.,  64  Minn.  245,  66  N.  W.  988,  (Mass.),  246,  83  Am.  Dec.  626;  Bird 
4  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  55.  v.  Georgia  R.  Co.,  72  Ga.  655,  27  Am. 

16.  National  Bank  v.  Philadelphia,  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  39. 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  163  Pa.  St.  467;  Nanson  18.  See  delivery  to  holder  of  bill  of 

V.  Jacob,  93  Mo.  331,  3  Am.  St.  Rep.  laxling,  §  9,  ante. 

531,  19.  Barron  v.  Mobile  *  0.  R.  Co., 

17.  Mallory    v.    Burritt,    1    E.    D.  2  Ala.  App.  555,  56  So.  862. 
Smith    (N.  Y.),  234;   Moses  v.  Port 


224  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

page  is  exercised,  tlie  assignment  of  the  bill  of  lading  transfer- 
ring the  title  to  the  property,  upon  the  principle  that  when- 
ever one  of  two  innocent  persons  must  suffer  by  the  act  of  a 
third,  he  who  has  enabled  the  third  person  to  do  or  occasion  the 
injury  must  suffer  the  loss.^"  The  carrier  cannot,  therefore,  re- 
lieve itself  from  liability  for  failure  to  deliver  the  property  to 
the  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading  by  showing  that  it  had  deliv- 
ered -t  upon  a  stoppage  in  transitu  to  the  consignor.  If 
the  transfer  of  a  bill  of  lading  by  way  of  a  pledge  or  mortgage, 
or  as  collateral  security  for  a  loan,  does  not  absolutely  defeat 
the  right  of  stoppage  in  transitu,  the  seller  cannot  exert  that  right 
until  he  has  discharged  the  debt  secured  by  the  transfer,  as  his 
right  is  subject  to  that  of  the  mortgagee  or  pledgee.^^ 

§  15.  Holder  of  bill  of  lading  has  priority  over  creditors, 
delivery,  passes  to  the  transferee  whatever  title  the  transferee 
^had  to  the  property  at  the  time.  Goods  covered  by  a  bill  of  lading 
pledged  for  the  acceptance  and  payment  of  a  draft  are  not,  there- 
fore, subject  in  the  hands  of  a  carrier  to  the  levy  of  an  attachment 
by  creditors  as  the  property  of  the  consignor.^^  A  consignee  of 
goods  is  not  entitled  to  a  preference  for  a  balance  of  advances 
made  by  him  to  the  consignor,  over  the  claims  of  a  holder  of  a 
draft  to  secure  which  bills  of  lading  for  the  goods  have  been 
transferred  by  the  consignor,  when  the  goods  were  not  shipped 
in  payment  of  such  advances,  since  a  bill  of  lading,  by  the  com- 
mercial law  as  well  as  by  the  statute,  when  legally  transferred, 
gives  title  to  the  property  which  it  represents.^^ 

20.  Dows  V.  Greene,  24  N.  Y.  641;  861,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  73  note; 
Dows  V.  Perrin,  16  N.  Y.  325;  Dows  Chandler  v.  Fulton,  10  Tex.  24,  60 
V.  Rush,  28  Barb.  (N.  Y.)   157;  Wells      Am.  Dec.  188. 

V.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  32  Fed.  51.  12  22.  Dickson  v.  Merchants'  Elevator 

Sawy.    (U.    S.)    519;    Lickbarrow    v.  Co.,  44  Mo.  App.  498 ;  Neil]  v.  Rogers 

Mason,    2    T.    R.    63,    6    East,    21,    1  Bros.  Produce  Co.,  41  W.  Va.  37,  23 

Smith's  L.  Cas.  753;   Gurney  v.  Beh-  S.   E.    702. 

rend,  3  El.  &  Bl.  623,  77  E.  C.  L.  622.  23.  Starksville  First  Nat.  Bank  v. 

21.  ^rissouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heiden-  Meyer,  43  La.  Ann.  1,  8  So.  433. 
heimer,  82  Tex.  195,  27  Am.  St.  Rep. 


TERMINATION  OF   LIABILITY.  225 

§  16.  Effect  of  the  word  "  notify  "  in  bill  of  lading. 

The  direction  in  a  bill  of  lading  to  ^'notify"  a  given  party  shows 
that  such  party  is  not  intended  as  the  consignee.  If  he  is,  the 
word  is  wholly  unnecessary.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to 
notify  the  consignee  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods.  If  no  one  is 
named  as  consignee  in  the  bill,  no  delivery  should  be  made  to  any 
one  who  does  not  produce  it.^^  Directions  in  a  bill  of  lading  to 
notify  a  person  other  than  the  consignee  of  the  arrival  of  the 
shipment  does  not  authorize  the  carrier  to  deliver  the  shipment 
to  such  person  without  the  production  of  a  bill  of  lading. ^^  For 
such  a  delivery  the  carrier  is  liable  to  a  bank  which  has  dis- 
counted drafts  drawn  against  the  consignment  on  the  security 
of  receipts  endorsed  over  to  it  by  the  shipper  and  consignee.^® 
The  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading,  properly  indorsed  to  him  and 
which  is  attached  to  a  draft  which  he  has  paid,  is  not  obliged  to 
notify  the  carrier  not  to  deliver  to  the  party  to  whom  notification 
is  to  be  given,  nor  to  do  anything  to  prevent  such  a  delivery,  except 
to  present  the  bill  of  lading  and  demand  delivery  within  a  reaon- 
able  time.^^  A  bona  fide  holder  for  value  without  notice  of  a 
bill  of  lading  which  stipulates  for  the  delivery  of  the  goods  to 
the  shipper's  order  at  a  designated  point,  with  direction  to  notify 
a  third  person,  is  not  affected  by  a  prior  agreement  or  custom 
among  the  consignor,  the  carrier,  and  such  third  person,  to  the 
effect  that  the  latter  may,  without  production  of  tlie  bill,  change 
the  destination  of  the  goods.^^    A  carrier  of  freight  under  a  bill  of 

24.  Furman  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  27.  Chester  Nat.  Bank  v.  Atlanta, 
106  N.  Y.  579,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  etc.,  Air  Line  R.  Co.,  25  S.  C.  216. 
500,  revg.  35  Hun   (N.  Y.),  669.     See  28.  Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Ohio 
else  Colgate  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  102  Valley  Bkg.  &  T.  Co.,  107  Ga.  512,  33 
N.  Y.  120.  'S.  E.  21,  15  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N. 

25.  Union  Stock  Yards  Co.  v.  West-  S.  839.  A  bank  may,  after  reimbiirs- 
cott,  47  Neb.  300,  3  Am.  &  Eng.  R,  ing  the  owner  of  the  goods,  maintain 
Cas.  N.  S.  375,  66  N.  W.  419.  an   action   against   a  common   carrier 

26.  North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  for  an  unauthorized  delivery  of  tliem 
Commercial  Bank,  123  U.  S.  727,  35  when  it  turned  them  over  to  parties 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  556;  Libby  v.  for  whom  it  had  reason  to  believe 
Ingalls,  124  Mass.  503.  See  also  they  were  ultimately  intended,  taking 
North  V.  Merchants,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  an  indemnifying  check  for  security, 
146  Mass.  315,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  which  it  later  surrenderd,  when  the 
Cas.   509,  note.  goods  were  delivered  to  one   whom   the 

15 


226  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

lading  requiring  notice  to  the  purchaser  from  the  consignee  is 
liable  as  carrier  until  it  has  placed  the  car  in  a  proper  place  for 
examination  by  the  purchaser.^ 

§  17.  Bill  of  lading  attached  to  draft. 

Where  the  shipper  or  owner  of  property  consigns  the  property 
shipped  to  the  purchaser  upon  payment  of  draft  attached  to  the 
bill  of  lading  for  the  purchase  price  of  the  goods,  the  title  to  the 
property  does  not  pass  to  the  purchaser,  and  the  purchaser,  though 
named  as  consigTiee,  is  not  entitled  to  a  delivery  of  the  property, 
until  he  has  accepted  and  paid  the  draft  accompanying  the  bill 
of  lading  and  received  the  bill  of  lading;  and  a  delivery  to  him 
before  the  draft  is  paid  and  the  bill  of  lading  delivered  to  him, 
or  without  requiring  the  production  of  the  bill  of  lading  properly 
indorsed,  will  render  the  carrier  liable  to  the  shipper  or  owner 
of  the  property  for  the  amount  of  the  draft  if  the  purchaser 
fails  to  pay  for  the  property.^*  Where  the  consignor  of  prop- 
erty, upon  its  shipment  and  before  delivery,  draws  a  bill  of  ex- 
change upon  the  consignee  and  procures  the  same  to  be  discounted 
at  a  bank  upon  the  security  of  a  bill  of  lading  which  is  trans- 
ferred and  delivered  with  it,  the  bank  acquires  title  to  the  prop- 
erty described  in  the  bill  of  lading,  conditional  upon  the  accept- 
ance of  the  draft  by  th*  consignee;  upon  such  acceptance,  the 
title  passes  to  the  acceptor;  but  upon  refusal  to  accept,  the  title 
continues  unimpaired  in  the  bank,  and  upon  the  receipt  by  the 
consignee  of  the  property  and  its  conversion,  he  is  liable  to  the 
bank  for  the  money  advanced  upon-it.^^     And  upon  delivery  of 

bill  of  lading  directed  to  be  notified,  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Fed.  391; 

who    had    possession     of    such    bill,  Wells  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Fed. 

which    he    had    purloined    from    the  51,    12    Sawy.    (U.   S.)    519,   but  the 

bank.     Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lowe,  carrier   cannot   deliver   the   goods    to 

101  Ga.  320,  28  S.  E.  867,  10  Am.  &  the  shipper  while   in   transit;    Hous- 

Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  398.  ton,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Adams,   49   Tex. 

29.  W.  B.  Johnson  &  Co.  v.  Central  748,  30  Am.  Rep.  116. 

Vermont  Ry.  Co.,  84  Vt.  486,  79  Atl.  31.  Commercial    Bank    v.    PfeiflFer, 

1095.  108    N.    Y.    242;     Marine    Bank    v. 

30.  Commercial  Bank  v.  Chicago,  Wright,  48  N.  Y.  1;  Peters  v.  Elliott, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  160  111.  401;  Libby  v.  78  111.  321;  Michigan  Cent.  Ry.  Co. 
Ingalls,  124  Mass.  503;  Finn  v.  West-  v.  Phillips,  60  111.  190;  Illinois  Cent, 
ern  R.  Corp.,  102  Mass.  283;  Walters  R.  Co.  v.  Southern  Bank,  etc.,  41  III. 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


227 


the  goods  to  tlie  consignee  in  such  a  case  without  requiring  him 
to  produce  the  bill  of  lading,  the  carrier  is  guilty  of  a  conversion, 
of  the  goods  and  liable  accordingly.*^  Where  a  bill  of  lading  is  in- 
dorsed by  the  consignor  and  negotiated  for  value  as  security  for  a 
draft  drawn  on  a  third  person  by  the  consignor,  the  carrier  cannot 
deliver  the  goods  to  such  third  person  without  the  production  of 
the  bill  of  lading,  or  authority  from  the  holder  thereof,  and  if 
it  makes  such  a  delivery  it  will  be  liable  to  the  holder  of  such 
bill.**  But  since  indorsement  of  the  bill  of  lading  transfers  only 
such  title  as  the  consignor  had,  evidence  is  admissible  to  prove 
ownership  in  such  third  person.** 

§  18.  Effect  of  bill  of  lading  as  estoppel. 

A  carrier  is  liable  upon  a  bill  of  lading  issued  in  its  name  by 
an  agent  having  no  authority  to  issue  bills  except  on  receipt  of 


App.  2S7;  Chicago  Fifth  Nat.  Bank 
V.  Bayley,  115  Mass.  228;  Hathaway 
V.  Havnes,  124  Mass.  311. 

32.  JeflFersonville,  etc.,  R.  Ck).  v. 
Irvin,  46  Ind.  180;  McEwen.  v.  Jef- 
fersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Ind.  368 
5  Am.  Rep.  216,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  508,  note;  Joslyn  v.  Grand 
Trunk  R.  Co.,  51  Vt.  92 ;  Alderman  v. 
Eastern  R.  Co.,  115  Mass.  233;  Allen 
V.  Williams,  12  Pick.  (Mass.)  297. 
The  fact  that  the  delivery  of  the  goods 
to  the  party  whom  the  carrier  was 
directed  to  notify  was  in  accord- 
ance with  the  custom  and  course  of 
business  at  the  station  where  deliv- 
ery was  made  will  not  relieve  the 
carrier  from  liability  to  the  holder 
of  the  draft  with  the  bill  of  lading  at- 
tached, unless  it  was  known  and  as- 
sented to  by  the  shipper.  North 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Commercial 
Bank,' 123  U.  S.  727,  35  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.   Cas.   556. 

Acceptance  of  time  draft. — A  bank 
to  which  a  bill  of  lading  is  forwarded 
with  a  time  draft  attached  for  col- 
lection,  without  special   instructions, 


must  surrender  the  bill  of  lading  to 
the  drawee  upon  his  acceptance  of 
the  draft,  and  is  not  bound  to  re- 
tain it,  as  the  inference  is  that  the 
transaction  is  a  sale  on  credit,  and 
that  the  bill  of  lading  is  security  for 
an  acceptance,  and  not  for  payment 
of  the  draft.  Commercial  Bank  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  160  III.  401,  43 
N.  E.  756,  aflFg.  58  111.  App.  438. 

33.  Newcomb  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Corp.,  115  Mass.  230;  Alderman  v. 
Eastern  R.  Co.,  115  Mass.  233;  The 
Thames,  14  Wall.  (U.  S.)  98; 
Wichita  Savings  Bank  v.  Atchison, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Kan.  519;  Boatmen's 
Savings  Bank  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
81  Ga.  221;  Chester  Nat.  Bank  v.  At- 
lanta, etc..  Air  Line  R.  Co.,  25  S.  C. 
216;  Neill  v.  Rogers  Bros.  Produce 
Co.,  41  W.  Va.  37;  Lake  Shore,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  National  Live  Stock  Bank, 
59  111.  App.  451;  The  Argentina.  L.  R. 
1  Adm.  Eccl.  370;  Tlie  Emilinea 
Marie,  32  L.  T.  N.  S.  435. 

34.  Empire  Transp.  Co.  v.  Steele, 
70  Pa.  St.  188. 


228  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

property  for  transportation  to  one  who,  upon  transfer  by  the 
i-hippor  upon  the  faith  of  the  bill,  has,  in  good  faith  discounted 
a  draft  drawn  upon  the  consignee,  although  there  was  no  actual 
delivery  of  the  property;  the  carrier  is  bound  by  its  agent's  act3 
and  is  estopped  from  denying  the  receipt  of  the  goods. ^^  This 
rule  is  maintained  in  New  York  and  certain  other  states,  and  the 
reasons  upon  which  the  rule  is  based  are,  substantially,  that  the 
question  does  not  depend  upon  the  negotiability  of  bills  of  lading 
but  upon  the  settled  doctrine  of  the  law  of  agency  that  where  a 
principal  has  clothed  his  agent  with  power  to  do  an  act  upon  the 
existence  of  some  extrinsic  fact,  necessarily  and  peculiarly  within 
the  knowledge  of  the  agent,  and  of  the  existence  of  which  the  act 
of  executing  the  power  is  itself  a  representation,  the  principal  is 
estopped  from  denying  the  existence  of  the  fact,  to  the  prejudice 
of  a  third  person,  who  has  dealt  with  the  agent  or  acted  on  his 
representation,  in  good  faith,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  business, 
pursuant  to  his  apparent  power.  Force  is  added  to  this  reasoning 
by  the  facts  that,  while  bills  of  lading  are  not  negotiable  in  the 
sense  applicable  to  commercial  paper,  they  are  commonly  trans- 
ferred as  security  for  loans  and  discounts,  carry  with  them  the 
ownership,  either  general  or  special,  of  the  property  which  they 
describe,  and  are  viewed  and  dealt  with  by  the  commercial  world 
as  quasi  negotiable,   and  consequently  it  is  desirable  that  they 

35.  Bank  of  Batavia  v.  New  York,  Kan.  App.  305,  45  Pac.  920;   Adams 

etc.,  R.   Co.,   106  N.  Y.   195,   60  Am.  Express   Co.   v.    Schlessinger,    75    Pa. 

Rep.   440,    19    Abb.   N.    C.    (  (N.   Y.)  St.  216;  Louisville,  etc.,  Packet  C.  v. 

131;    Brooke   v.    New    York,    etc.,    R.  Rogers,   20   Ind.   App.   594,   49   N.   E. 

Co.,    108   Pa.    St.    529,   2   East   Repr.  970. 

125,  56  Am.  Rep.  235;  Armour  v.  In  an  action  by  parties  who  had 
Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  65  N.  Y.  Ill,  paid  drafts  accompanying  a  bill  of 
22  Am.  Rep.  603;  Griswold  v.  Haven,  lading  against  a  carrier  for  the  value 
25  N.  Y.  595,  601;  New  York,  etc.,  R.  of  goods  which  the  carrier  never  re- 
Co.  V.  Schuyler,  34  N.  Y.  30;  North  ceived,  based  on  the  proposition  that 
River  Bank  V.  Aymar,  3  Hill  (N.  Y.),  the  carrier,  having  issued  a  bill  of 
362;  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  First  lading,  was  estopped  to  deny  their 
Nat.  Bank  of  Fremont,  10  Neb.  553;  receipt,  the  plaintiff  must  prove  that 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Larned,  103  the  bill  of  lading  was  actually  issued 
111.  293;  Wichita  Bank  v.  Atchison,  by  defendant  or  by  its  authority. 
etc.,  R,  Co.,  20  Kan.  519;  Smith  v.  Droste  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  138  N.  Y. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  74  Mo.  App.  48;  Supp.  203,  153  App.  Div.  160. 
St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.  Co;   v.   Adams,   4 


TERMINATION  OF   LIABILITY.  229 

should  be  viewed  with  confidence  and  not  distrust  and  should  pass 
free  from  one  to  another  and  advances  be  made  upon  their  faith; 
and  that  because  of  these  considerations  it  is  better  to  cast  the 
risk  of  the  goods  not  having  been  shipped  upon  the  carrier,  who 
has  placed  it  in  the  power  of  agents  of  his  own  choosing  to  make 
these  representations,  rather  than  upon  the  innocent  consignee  or 
endorsee,  who,  as  a  rule,  has  no  means  of  ascertaining  the  fact 
other  than  the  representations  of  the  carrier's  own  agent.^®  On 
the  contrary,  it  is  held  by  the  Federal  courts,  the  courts  of  many  of 
the  states,  and  the  authorities  in  England  that  a  bill  of  lading 
issued  by  a  station  or  shipping  agent  of  a  railroad  company  or 
other  common  carrier,  without  receiving  the  goods  named  in  it  for 
transportation,  imposes  no  liability  upon  the  carrier,  even  to  an 
innocent  consignee  or  indorsee  for  value,  and  that  the  carrier  is 
not  estopped  by  the  statements  in  the  bill  from  showing  that  no 
goods  were  in  fact  received  for  transportation,  and  that  the  rule 
is  the  same  whether  the  act  of  the  agent  was  fraudulent  and  collu- 
sive, or  merely  the  result  of  a  mistake.^^  Of  course  this  is  predi- 
cated upon  the  assumption  that  the  authority  of  the  agent  is 
limited  to  issuing  bills  of  lading  for  freight  received  before,  or 
concurrent  with,  the  issuing  of  the  bills,  which  would  be  the  pre- 
sumption in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary.     A  carrier 

36.  See  cases  cited  under  note  35,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkens,  44  Md.  11 ;  Fellows 
supra.  V.   The    R.   W.    Powell,    16   La.   Ann. 

37.  Friedlander  v.  Texas,  etc.,  Ry.  316;  Hunt  v.  Mississippi  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  130  U.  S.  416,  28  Cent.  L.  J.  503,  Co.,  29  La.  Ann.  446;  Louisiana  Nat 
note;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Com-  Bank  v.  Laveille,  52  Mo.  380;  Wil- 
mercial  U.  Ins.  Co.,  139  U.  S.  223,  lianls  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 
35  L.  Ed.  154,  11  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  554;  N.  C.  42;  Dean  v.  King,  22  Ohio  St. 
Pollard  V.  Vinton,  105  U.  S.  7;  Rob-  118;  Chandler  v.  Sprague,  38  Am. 
inson  v.  Memphis,  <jtc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Fed.  Dec.  410,  note;  Grant  v.  Norway,  10 
129;  The  Freeman,  18  How.  (U.  S.)  C.  B.  665;  Coleman  v.  Riches,  16  C. 
182,  191,  59  U.  'S.  182;  The  Lady  B.  104;  Hubbersty  v.  Ward,  8  Exch. 
Franklin,  8  Wall.  (U.  S.)  325;  St.  330;  Brown  v.  Powell  D.  S.  Coal  Co., 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Knight,  122  U.  L.  R.  10  C.  P.  562;  McLean  v.  Flem- 
S.  79,  87,  7  Sup.  Ct.  1132,  30  L.  Ed.  ing,  L.  R.  2  Sc.  App.  Cas.  128;  Cox 
1077;  National  Bank  v.  Railroad  Co.,  v.  Bruce,  L.  R.  18  Q.  B.  Div.  147; 
44  Minn.  224,  20  Am.  St.  Rep,  566,  Meyer  v.  Dresser,  15  C.  B.  (N.  S.) 
9  L.  R.  A.  263;  Sears  v.  Wingate,  3  646;  Jessel  v.  Bath,  L.  R.  2  Exch. 
Allen    (Mass.),  103;    Baltimore  &   O.  267. 


230  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

may  adopt  a  different  mode  of  doing  business  by  giving  his  agents 
authority  to  issue  bills  of  lading  for  goods  not  received,  so  as  to 
render  him  liable  in  such  cases  to  third  parties.'*  The  reasoning 
by  which  the  latter  doctrine  is  usually  supported  is  that  a  bill  of 
lading  is  not  negotiable  in  the  sense  in  which  a  bill  of  exchange 
or  promissory  note  is  negotiable,  where  the  purchaser  need  not 
look  beyond  the  instrument  itself;  that  so  far  as  it  is  a  receipt 
for  the  goods  it  is  susceptible  of  explanation  or  contradiction,  the 
same  as  any  other  receipt ;  that  the  whole  question  is  one  of  the  law 
of  agency;  that  it  is  not  within  the  scope  of  the  authority  of  the 
shipping  agent  of  the  carrier  to  issue  bills  of  lading  where  no 
property  is  in  fact  received  for  transportation ;  that  the  extent 
of  his  authority,  either  real  or  apparent,  is  to  issue  bills  of  lading 
for  freight  actually  received;  that  this  real  and  apparent  author- 
ity, i.  e.,  the  power  with  which  his  principal  has  clothed  him  in 
the  character  in  which  he  is  held  out  to  the  world,  is  the  same, 
viz.,  to  give  bills  of  lading  for  goods  received  for  transportation, 
and  tiiat  this  limitation  upon  his  authority  is  known  to  the  com- 
mercial world;  and  therefore,  any  person  purchasing  a  bill  of 
lading  issued  by  the  agent  of  a  carrier  acts  at  his  own  risk  as  re- 
spects the  existence  of  the  fact  (the  receipt  of  the  goods)  upon 
which  alone  the  agent  has  authority  to  issue  the  bill,  the  rule 
being  that  if  the  authority  of  an  agent  is  known  to  be  open  for 
exercise  only  in  a  certain  event,  or  upon  the  happening  of  a  cer- 
tain contingency,  or  the  performance  of  a  certain  condition,  the 
occurrence  of  the  event  or  the  happening  of  the  contingency,  or  the 
performance  of  the  condition,  must  be  ascertained  by  him  who 
would  avail  himself  of  the  results  ensuing  from  the  exercise  of 
the  authority.^* 

38.  National  Bank  v.  Railroad  Co.,  against  A.  for  a  shortage.  Held, 
44  Minn.  234,  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  566,  that  this  judgment  did  not  conclude 
9  L.  R.  A.  263.  the  carrier  issuing  the  bill  of  lading, 

39.  See  cases  cited,  note  37.  supra.  although  the  carrier  was  notified  by 
Carrier's  liability  to  assignor  of  A.  to  defend,  as  the  defenses  avail- 
bill  of  lading. — A.  bought  a  certain  able  to  the  carrier  would  not  have 
quantity  of  iron,  as  called  for  by  a  exonerated  A.  from  liability  to  the 
bill  of  lading,  and  sold  the  same  to  iron  company.  Garrison  v.  Bnggage 
an  iron  company,  who  paid  for  it,  Transp.  Co.,  94  Mo.  130,  32  Am.  & 
and  to  whom  it  was  delivered.     The  Eng.  R.  Cas.  525. 

iron   company   recovered   a  judgment 


TERAONATION  OF  LIABILITY.  231 

§  19.  Duplicate  bills  of  lading. 

Where  bills  are  issued  in  sets  of  two  or  more,  and  the  several 
parts  of  the  bill  are  transferred  to  different  parties  who  respec- 
tively make  advances  upon  the  faith  of  the  bill,  the  property  in 
the  goods  passes  to  the  first  transferee,  unless  a  subsequent  trans- 
feree has  a  superior  equity  to  that  of  being,  like  the  first,  a  bona 
fide  transferee  for  value/**  Where  the  several  bills  issued  provided 
that  when  delivery  is  made  on  one  the  others  are  to  be  void,  a  de- 
livery by  the  carrier  upon  presentation  of  a  duplicate  bill  of  lading 
properly  indorsed  is  a  discharge  of  the  carrier  from  further  lia- 
bility.*^ Where  the  original  bill  of  lading  contains  no  such  pro- 
vision the  carrier  is  liable  to  a  ho7ia  fide  holder  thereof  for  failure 
to  deliver  to  him,  and  proof  of  the  delivery  to  a  holder  of  a  prop- 
erly indorsed  duplicate  will  be  no  defense.*^  Where  the  consignor 
received  from  the  carrier  a  bill  of  lading  containing  a  provision 
that  the  goods  should  be  delivered  to  the  consignee  upon  the  pres- 
entation of  a  duplicate  of  such  bill  of  lading,  the  carrier  was  held 
liable  for  delivering  the  goods  without  requiring  the  production  of 
the  duplicate.*^  But  where  the  consignor,  upon  receiving  two  bills 
of  lading,  sends  one  of  them  with  a  draft  attached,  to  a  bank  for 
collection  of  the  draft,  and  sends  the  other  to  the  consignee,  who 
presents  it  and  receives  the  goods,  he  is  estopped  from  maintain- 

40.  Skilling  v.  Bollman,  6  Mo.  43.  McEwen  v.  Jeffersonville,  etc., 
App.  676;  Meyerstein  v.  Barber,  L.  R.  Co.,  33  Ind.  368,  5  Am.  Rep.  216; 
R.  44  L.  317;  Sanders  v.  McLean,  11      The  Saugerties,  44  Fed.  625. 

Q.  B.  Div.  327.  Duplicate    bills    of    lading    copied 

41.  Glyn  v.  East,  etc.,  India  Dock  from  the  stub  books  from  which  the 
Co.,  L.  R.  7  App.  591 ;  Skilling  v.  original  bills  were  issued,  by  the  local 
Bollman,  73  Mo.  665,  39  Am.  Rep.  agent  some  time  after  such  issu- 
537.  ance,  are  inadmissible  in  evidence  as 

42.  Midland  Nat.  Bank  v.  Mis-  against  the  carrier.  They  are  within 
souri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  132  Mo.  492.  the  rule  that  the  declarations  of  an 

Where  a  railroad  company  issues  agent  as  to  a  past  transaction  are  not 
two  delivery  orders  for  the  same  admissible  to  bind  his  principal.  Ed- 
grain,  both  orders  being  in  the  same  gerton  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
form  and  containing  nothing  to  show  115  N.  C.  645,  20  S.  E.  184,  61  Am. 
that  they  related  to  the  same  con-  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  253;  Missouri  Pac,  R. 
signment,  such  company  is  liable  to  Co.  v.  Heidenheimer,  82  Tex.  195,  27 
third  persons  making  advances  on  Am.  St.  Rep.  861. 
both  orders.  Coventry  v.  Great  East- 
ern R.  Co.,  11  Q.  B.  Div.  776, 


0'V>  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

ing  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  a  wrongful  delivery  by  the 
fact  that  he  himself  clothed  the  consignee  with  apparent  authority 
to  receive." 


§  20.  Necessity  of  indorsement  of  bill  of  lading. 

Under  the  law  merchant  bills  of  lading  were  transferable  by 
delivery  merely.^^  Where  a  bill  of  lading  directs  a  delivery  to 
bearer,  or  to  a  named  consignee  or  bearer,  the  delivery  of  the  bill 
passes  the  title  to  the  property,  and  the  carrier  is  entitled  to  de- 
liver to  any  one  holding  the  bill  without  any  indorsement.*®  The 
delivery  of  a  bill  of  lading,  with  intent  to  pass  the  title,  has  that 
eifect,  though  drawn  to  order,  and  not  indorsed.''^  But,  except 
where  the  bill  of  lading  directs  a  delivery  to  bearer,  the  carrier  is 
responsible  for  delivering  to  any  one  but  the  original  holder  of 
the  bill  of  lading,  unless  it  is  properly  indorsed  by  him ;  a  delivery 
to  a  third  person  on  an  unindorsed  bill  of  lading  is  always  at  the 
risk  of  the  carrier.**  Where  the  goods  are  consigned  to  a  party 
named  but,  by  the  bill  of  lading,  the  consignor  retains  the  right 
of  disposition  over  the  goods,  the  delivery  of  the  bill  of  lading  for 
value,  without  indorsement,  transfers  tbe  title  to  the  property 
covered  by  the  bill  and  justifies  a  delivery  by  the  carrier  to  the 

44.  Weyand  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Irvin,  46  Ind.  180;  Becker  v.  Hall- 
Co.,  75  Iowa,  573,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  504.  garten,  86  N.  Y.  167;   Bank  of  Roch- 

45.  Scharff  v.  Meyer,  133  Mo.  428,  ester  v.  Jones,  4  N.  Y.  497;  55  Am. 
42  Cent.  L.  J.  367;  Crowell  v.  Van  Dec.  390;  Richardson  v.  Nathan,  167 
Bibber,  IS  La.  Ann.  637;  Par.  Mcr.  Pa.  St.  513;  American  Zinc,  etc.,  Co. 
Law,  346;   2  Kent's  Com.  v.  Markle  Lead  Works,  102  Mo.  App. 

46.  Allen  v.  Williams,  12  Pick.  158,  76  S.  W.  668;  The  Carlos  F. 
(Mass.)  297;  Nathan  v.  Giles,  5  Roses,  177  U.  S.  655,  40  L.  Ed.  929. 
Taunt.  558;  Low  v.  DeWolf,  8  Pick.  48.  Capehart  v.  Granite  Mills,  97 
(Mass.)    101.  Ala.  353,  12  So.  44;  Jordan  v.  Pcnn- 

47.  City  Bank  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  sylvania  Co.,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
Co.,  44  N.  Y.  136;  Merchants'  Bank  647,  31  Alb.  L.  J.  250;  Sword  v. 
V.  Union  R.  &  Transp.  Co.,  69  N.  Y.  Young,  89  Tenn.  126,  45  Am.  &  Eng. 
376;  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Phil-  R.  Cas.  384;  Weyand  v.  Atchison^ 
lips,  60  111.  190;  Western  Ry.  Co.  v.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Iowa,  573,  9  Am.  St. 
Wagner,  65  111.  197;  Green  Bay  First  Rep.  504,  33  N.  W.  133,  revg.  30  Am. 
Nat.  Bank  v.  Dearborn,  115  Mass.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  102;  Cavallaro  v» 
219;     Jeffersonville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v,  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  Cal.  348. 


TERMINATION   OF   LIABILITY. 


23S 


holder  of  the  bill."*  The  rule  is  the  same,  in  the  case  of  a  sale  of 
the  goods,  if  the  right  to  dispose  of  the  property  is,  by  the  bill  of 
lading,  retained  by  the  consignor.^"  Proof  of  a  custom  to  deliver 
without  indorsement,  unless  it  be  shown  that  the  party  injured 
thereby  knew  and  acted  with  knowledge  of  the  custom,  will  not 
excuse  a  delivery  by  the  carrier  upon  the  presentation  of  an  unin- 
dorsed bill  of  lading.^^  Where  an  invoice  of  goods  shows  that  the 
delivery  is  to  be  made  only  to  the  party  producing  the  bill  of 
lading,  delivery  to  the  holder  of  the  invoice  without  requiring  pro- 
duction of  the  bill  of  lading  will  render  the  carrier  liable.^^ 

§  21.  Carrier's  liability  for  misdelivery. 

Common  carriers  deliver  property  at  their  peril  and  must  take 
care  that  it  is' delivered  to  the  right  party.  The  obligation  to  de- 
liver to  the  proper  person  is  absolute  and  is  rigorously  enforced 
by  the  courts,  and  the  law  allows  no  excuse  for  a  wrong  delivery, 
except  the  fault  of  the  shipper  himself.  When  there  is  any  doubt 
as  to  who  is  the  proper  person  to  make  delivery  to  and  it  can  be 
determined  by  the  bill  of  lading  or  other  documentary  evidence, 
its  production  should  be  required  by  the  carrier,  and  the  property 
detained  until  demanded  by  one  claiming  under  such  a  title.^^    If 

49.  Marine  Bank  v.  Wright,  48  N.  53.  A^  Y. — Security  Trust  Co.  v. 
Y.  1;  Bank  of  Rochester  v.  Jones,  4  Wells  Fargo  Express,  178  N.  Y.  620, 
N.  Y.  497,  55  Am.  Dec.  290;  Holmes  70  N.  E.  1109,  affg.  81  App.  Div.  (N. 
V.  German  Security  Bank,  87  Pa.  St.  Y.)  426,  80  N.  Y.  Supp.  830;  Fur- 
525;  Phelps  v.  Bank,  2  McGloin  man  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  106  N.  Y. 
(La.),  19;  Green  Bay  First  Nat.  579,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  500;  Mc- 
Bank  v.  Dearborn,  115  Mass.  219;  Entee  v.  New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co., 
Cairo  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Crocker,  11  45  N.  Y.  34,  6  Am.  Rep.  28;  City 
Mass.  163;  Davenport  Nat.  Bank  v.  Bank  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  N.  Y. 
Homeyer,  45  Mo.  145,  100  Am.  Dec.  136;  Scheu  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  10  Hun 
363;  Valle  v.  Cerre,  36  Mo.  576,  88  (N.  Y.),  498;  Oswego  Bank  v.  Doyle, 
Am.  Dec.   161.  91  N.  Y.  32,  43  Am.  Rep.  634;  Pack- 

50.  Weyand  v,  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  ard  v.  Getman,  4  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  613, 
Co.,  75  Iowa,  573,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  504.  21  Am.  Dec.  166;    Sonn  v.  Smith,  57 

51.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bark-  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  372,  68  N.  Y. 
house,  100  Ala.  543;   Weyand    v.  At-  Supp.  217. 

chison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  supra.  Ark. — Little   Rock,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

52.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Stern,  Glidewell,  39  Ark.  487,  18  Am.  & 
119  Pa.  St.  24,  4  Am.  St.  Rep.   626;       Eng.  R.  Cas.  539. 

North   Pennsylvania  R.   Co.  v.   Com-  Dak. — Waldron  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

mercial  Bank,  123  U.  S.  727.  Co.,  1  Dak.  336. 


234 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


delivery  be  made  to  the  wrong  person,  either  by  an  innocent  mis- 
take, or  through  the  fraud,  imposition,  or  deceit  of  a  third  person, 
as  upon  a  forged  order,  the  carrier  will  be  responsible,  and  the 
wrongful  delivery  will  be  treated  as  a  conversion.^^     That  the 


III — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rose, 
20  111.  App.  670;  Indianapolis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Vanduzen,  81  111.  143; 
American  Express  Co.  v.  Baldwin,  26 
111.  504,  79  Am.  Dec.  101. 

Mass. — Forbes  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  133  Mass.  154;  Mahon  v.  Blake, 
125  Mass.  477;  Hall  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  14  Allen  (Mass.),  439,  92  Am. 
Dec.  783;  Claflin  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  7  Allen    (Mass.),   341. 

Mich. — Gibbons  v.  Farwell,  63  Mich. 
344,  6  Am.  St.  Rep.  301,  29  N.  W. 
855. 

Minn.— Jellett  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  30  Minn.  265,  15  N.  W.  237. 

Mo. — Cole  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
31  Mo.  App.  443;  Erskine  v.  Steam- 
boat Thames,  6  Mo.  371. 

N.  E. — Smith  v,  Nashua,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  27  N.  H.  86,  59  Am.  Dec.  354. 

Pa. — Wernwag  v.  Philadelphia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  117  Pa.  St.  46,  20  W.  N. 
C.  (Pa.)  150,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
515;  Graff  v.  Bloomer,  9  Pa.  St.  114. 

Tenn. — Sword  v.  Young,  89  Tenn. 
126;  Bloomingdale  v.  Memphis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  6  Lea  (Tenn.),  618,  6  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  371;  Erie  Despatch  v. 
Johnson,  87  Tenn.  490,  11  S.  W.  441. 

Tex. — Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ad- 
ams, 49  Tex.  748,  30  Am.  Rep.  116; 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Seley,  31 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  158,  72  S.  W.  89. 

yt. — Winslow  V.  Vermont,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  42  Vt.  700,  1  Am.  Rep.  365. 

Eng. — Fowles  v.  Great  Western  R. 
Co.,  7  Exch.  699,  22  L.  J.  Exch.  76; 
Richards  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  C. 
B.   839,  62  E.  C.  L.  839;   Moffatt  v. 


Great  Western  R.  Co.,  15  L.  T.  N.  S. 
630;  Hoare  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co., 
25  W.  R.  63;  Youl  v.  Harbottle, 
Peake  N.  P.  49. 

Delivery  to  one  who  had  been  con- 
signor's agent. — In  an  action  against 
a  carrier  for  the  conversion  of  goods 
by  delivering  them  to  the  person  to 
wliom  they  were  consigned  and  who 
had  been  plaintiff's  agent,  after  ter- 
mination of  the  agency  and  notice  by 
plaintiff  not  to  do  so,  it  is  no  de- 
fense that  such  person  had  a  lien  on 
the  goods  for  freight  paid,  where  it 
appears  that  he  at  the  time  owed 
plaintiff  a  larger  sum.  Lester  v. 
Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Hun  (N. 
Y.),  342,   36  N.  Y.   Supp.   907. 

54.  McEntee  v.  New  Jersey  Steam- 
boat Co.,  45  N.  Y.  34,  6  Am.  Rep.  28 ; 
Guillame  v.  Hamburgh  &  Am.  Packet 
Co.,  42  N.  Y.  212;  Powell  v.  Myers, 
26  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  590;  Hawkins  v. 
Hoffman,  6  Hill  (N.  Y.),  586  Shenk 
V.  Philadelphia  Steam  Propeller  Co., 
60  Pa.   St.   109,   100  Am.  Dec.   541. 

Misdelivery  through  mistake. — 
Cliicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ames,  40  111. 
249,  mistake  in  marking  the  number 
of  a  car;  Wilson  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  23  Mo.  App.  50,  mistake  in  mak* 
ing  out  shipping  bills;  Arlington  v. 
Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Jones  L. 
(N.  C.)  68,  72  Am.  Dec.  559,  mistake 
in  the  waybill  of  the  carrier;  Clement 
V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  N. 
Y.  Supp.  601,  goods  delivered  to  third 
party  by  mistake. 

Fraud  and  misrepresentation.— 
Viner   v.   New   York,   etc..   Steamship 


TERMINATION  OF   LIABILITY.  235 

delivery  was  made  in  accordance  with  the  usual  course  of  business 
and  the  carrier's  usual  custom  at  the  destination  of  the  goods,  will 
not  relieve  the  carrier  from  liability  for  misdelivery,  except  under 
special  circumstances  where  it  clearly  appears  that  the  party  in- 
jured was  aware  of  the  custom  and  acted  with  knowledge  of  it.^* 
No  amount  of  care  or  caution  will  relieve  the  carrier,  since  it  is 
not  a  question  of  want  of  care  or  negligence ;  the  carrier's  under- 
taking as  an  insurer  is  to  deliver  safely  as  well  as  to  carry  safely ; 
its  liability  as  an  insurer  extends  to  a  delivery  to  the  proper  party, 
and  its  warranty  as  an  insurer  is  broken  by  a  misdelivery.^®    It  is 
the  duty  of  the  carrier  in  all  cases  to  be  diligent  in  its  efforts  to 
secure  a  delivery  of  the  property  to  the  person  entitled,  and  where 
delivery  is  to  be  made  to  the  consignee  or  any  other  particularly 
specified  person,  the  carrier  is  bound  to  require  evidence  of  iden- 
tity of  the  party  claiming  delivery  as  the  real  party  entitled,  and 
it  cannot  properly,   or  without   incurring  liability  to   the   true 
owner,  deliver  goods  to  any  person  who  calls  for  them  other  than 
the   rightful  owner,   and  cannot  plead  imposition  practiced  by 
others  as  a  defense  to  an  action  for  misdelivery."    A  carrier  wil] 

Co.,  50  N.  Y.  23 ;  Wilson  Sewing  Ma-  56.  Forbes  v.   Boston,   etc.,  R.  Co., 

chine  Co.  v.   Louisville,   etc.,  R.   Co.,  133  Mass.  154,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

71  Mo.  203;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co,  v.  76;  Hall  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.,  14 

Adams,  49  Tex.  748,  30  Am.  Rep.  116;  Allen  (Mass.),  439,  92  Am.  Dec.  783; 

Winslow  V.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  South,  etc.,  Alabama  R.  Co.  v.  Wood, 

Vt.  700,  1  Am.  Rep.  365;  South,  etc.,  66  Ala.  107,  41  Am.  Rep.  749,  9  Am 

Alabama  R.  Co.  V.  Wood,  66  Ala.  167,  &    Eng.   R.    Cas.    419;    Bodenham   v. 

41  Am.  Rep.   749,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Bennett,  4  Price  31;  Richards  v.  Lon- 

Cas.   419;    American   Sugar   Refining  don,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  C.  B.  839,  62  E, 

Co.  V.  McGhee,   96   Ga.   27;    Price  v.  C.  L.  839,  18  L.  J.  C.  P.  25L 

Oswego,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  213,  10  57.  Price   v.   Oswego,   etc.,   R,   Co., 

Am.   Rep.   475.      Compare  Dunbar   v.  50  N.  Y.  213,  10  Am.  Rep.  475,  3  Am. 

Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.,  110  Mass.  26,  Ry.  Rep.  325,  revg.  58  Barb.   (N.  Y.) 

14  Am.  Rep.  576.  599;   McEntee  v.  New  Jersey  Steam- 

55.  Sinsheimer  v.  New  York,   etc.,  boat  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  34,  6  Am.  Rep.  28; 

R.  Co.,  21  Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)   45,  46  Powell  v.  Myers,  26   Wend.    (N.  Y.) 

N,  Y.  Supp.  887 ;  Hall  v.  Boston,  etc.,  591 ;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pumph- 

R.   Corp.,   14  Allen    (Mass.),   439,   92  rey,  59  Md.  390,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

Am.  Dec.  783;   Winslow  v.  Vermont,  331;    Pacific  Express  Co.  v.  Shearer, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Vt.  700,  1  Am.  Rep.  160  111.  215;  Ten  Eyck  v.  Harris,  47 

365.      Compare    Bush    v.    St.    Louis,  111.   268;    Sword  v.  Young,  89   Tenn, 

etc.,  R,  Co.,  3  Mo.  App.  62.    See  also,  126,  129,  14  S.  W.  481,  604.    See  also, 

S  20,  note  30.  §  6,  Delivery  to  fraudulent  purchaser. 


236 


THE  LAW  OF  CAKRIERS. 


be  protected  in  refusing  delivery  until  reasonable  evidence  is  fur- 
nished it  that  the  party  claiming  is  the  party  entitled,  so  long  as 
it  acts  in  good  faith  and  with  a  sole  view  to  a  proper  delivery,^* 
and  it  may  refuse  to  deliver  to  a  consignee  who  is  not  identified, 
although  he  may  offer  security,  and  an  action  cannot  be  main- 
tained by  such  person  against  the  carrier  based  upon  such  re- 
fusal.''^ Where,  however,  the  relation  of  the  parties  is  not  that 
of  carrier  and  owner  or  consignee,  or  where  the  responsibility  of 
the  carrier  has  terminated  and  that  of  a  warehouseman  has  com- 
menced or  exists,  the  strict  rule  of  responsibility  as  insurer  does 
not  prevail,  and  the  carrier  is  responsible  for  proper  diligence  and 
care  only  in  the  preservation  of  the  property  and  its  delivery  to  the 
true  owner,  and  liable  only  for  losses  resulting  from  its  own  reg- 
ligence.^''  The  delivery  of  goods  by  a  carrier  at  destination,  with- 
out requiring  the  surrender  of  a  bill  of  lading,  as  required  by  a 
stipulation  therein,  does  not  involve  any  breach  of  duty  to  the 
consignor,  if  the  delivery  is  made  to  the  consignee,  or  upon  his 
order,  or  by  his  authority." 

§  22.  Delivery  to  one  of  two  persons  of  the  same  name. 

A  shipper  may  recover  for  goods  delivered  to  the  wrong  con- 
signee,   through   the   carrier's   failure   to   exercise   ordinary   and 

58.  McEntee  v.  New  Jersey  Steam-  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  Ga.  140, 
boat  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  34,  6  Am.  Rep.  28.       29  S.  E.  698,  40  L.  R.  A.  367,  10  Am. 

59.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,      &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  391. 

49  Tex.  761,  30  Am.  Rep.  116;  Gulf,  A  consignor  waives  his  right  of  ao- 
etc,  R.  Co.  V.  Freeman,  4  Tex.  App.  tion  for  conversion  against  the  car- 
Civ.  Cas.  245.  Compare  Thomas  v.  rier  for  the  delivery  of  the  goods  to 
Pacific  Express  Co.,  30  Mo.  App.  86,  the  consignee  without  the  production 
wherein  it  is  held  that  a  consignor  of  the  bill  of  lading,  as  required  by 
of  o-oods  sent  by  express,  which  are  the  terms  thereof,  by  taking  the  con- 
not  delivered  at  their  destination  but  signee's  acceptance  of  a  draft  drawn 
brought  back  to  the  place  of  ship-  against  the  shipment,  after  he  knew 
ment,  cannot  be  refused  the  return  of  that  the  goods  had  been  delivered 
the  goods  to  him  because  of  a  rule  of  without  a  production  of  the  bill  of 
the  express  company  requiring  identi-  lading,  and  that  his  intention  to  pre- 
fication  of  consignees.  vent   a   delivery   of   the   goods    until 

60.  Burnell  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  payment  of  the  purchase  price  had 
Co.  45  N.  Y.  184,  6  Am.  Rep.  61;  been  thereby  defeated.  Southern  R. 
Carroll  v.  Southern  ExpresB  Co.,  37  Co.  v.  Kinchen,  103  Ga.  186,  29  S.  E, 
B.  C.  452.  816. 

61.  Chicago   Packing  &   P.   Co.   v. 


TERMINATION   OF  LIABILITY. 


23T 


proper  care,  as  where  the  carrier  delivers  goods  to  an  imposter  or 
swindler  who  ordered  them  in  the  name  of  a  responsible  person; 
and  the  right  to  recover  is  not  dependent  upon  the  shipper's  dis- 
covering the  fraud  and  stopping  the  goods  in  transitu.^'     But  the 
carrier  is  not  liable  for  a  misdelivery,  where  there  are  two  persons 
of  the  same  name  in  the  same  place,  in  delivering  goods  to  one  of 
the  two  when  the  other  was  intended  as  the  consignee,  where  there 
is  nothing  in  the  marking  on  the  shipment  or  in  the  bill  of  lading 
to  indicate  which  of  the  two  is  intended  as  consignee,  and  delivery 
is  made  to  the  person  who  produces  the  bill  of  lading  and  demands 
the  goods.     The  loss  must  be  borne  by  the  consignor  because  of 
his  negligence  in  not  marking  the  shipment  more  specifically.^^ 
A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  misdelivery  in  delivering  to  that  one 
of  two  men  of  the  same  name  in  the  same  towoi  who  orders  the 
goods  shipped,  although  the  shipper  believed  the  order  was  from 
and  intended  the  goods  to  go  to  the  other,  notwithstanding  the 
purchaser  fraudulently  assumed  such  name  in  buying,  provided 
he  was  known  by  it  at  the  place  of  destination.^^     But  a  mere 
similarity  of  names  is  no  defense  to  an  action  for  misdelivery  in 
delivering  goods  to  the  wrong  party.®^     Delivery  by  an  express 
company  of  goods  received  by  it  under  a  contract  for  their  deliv- 
ery to  a  specified  consignee  at  a  point  beyond  its  terminal  office, 
to  an  agent  of  such  consignee  duly  authorized  to  receive  them, 
completes  the  contract  of  carriage,  although  the  goods  were  not 

62.  Wilson  v.  Adams   Express  Co.,  men,    were    liable    for    due    diligence 

43  Mo.  App.   659,  27  Mo.  App.   360;  only;   that  they  were  not  chargeable, 

Pacific  Express   Co.  v.   Critzer    (Tex.  under  the  circumstances,  with  negli- 

Civ.  App.),  42  S.  W.  1017.     See  also,  gence;  and  there  had  not  been  a  mis- 

§  6,  ante.  delivery. 

62a.  Bush  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  The  rule  that  the  owner  must  bear 

3  Mo.  App.  62.     In  the  case  cited  the  the  loss  in  case  of  a  misdeliverj'  aris- 

carrier  had  tendered  the  goods  to  the  ing  from  his  improperly  marking  the 

consignee  intended,  who  said  he  had  package — applied   where  the   package 

not  ordered  them  and  refused  them,  was  carried  to  the  wrong  place,  and 

and  the  company  then  stored  them  as  there  destroyed  by  fire,  without  fault 

warehousemen    and    subsequently    de-  of  the  carrier.     Southern  Express  Co. 

livered  them  on  demand  and  produc-  v,  T'.,„fmnn,  12  Hcisk.  (Tenn.)  161. 
tion  of  the  bill  of  lading  to  the  other  63.  Southern     Express    Co.    v.    Os- 

person    of    the    same    name.      It    was  kanip,  14  Ohio  C.  C.  176,  7  OJiio  Dec, 

held  that  the  company,  as  warehouse-  417. 


238  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

ordered  by  the  consignee  to  whom  the  shipper  really  intended  to 
send  them,  but  by  another  person  bearing,  or  pretending  to  bear, 
the  same  name,  to  whom  the  goods  were  finally  delivered  after 
passing  through  the  hands  of  the  real  consignee's  agent.^^ 

§  23.  Place  of  delivery. 

In  the  absence  of  special  contract  or  a  statute  fixing  the  place 
of  delivery,  a  carrier's  contract  of  carriage  is  not  completed,  but 
its  obligation  continues,  until  delivery  at  its  depot  or  warehouse 
where  goods  are  customarily  unloaded  and  delivered  at  the  place 
of  destination  of  the  goods ;  and  an  offer  by  the  carrier  to  deliver 
at  such  place,  except  where  personal  delivery  is  requisite,  is  suffi- 
cient, without  regard  to  where  the  consignee  may  actually  be.^^ 
A  consignee  of  goods  is  entitled  to  receive  them  at  the  place  where 
the  carrier  undertook  to  deliver  them,  and  is  under  no  obligation 
to  receive  them  elsewhere.*"^  An  attempt  by  the  carrier  to  deliver 
at  a  new  and  unusual  place  will  render  it  liable  for  all  losses  or 
injuries  which  might  have  been  avoided  by  delivery  at  the  proper 
place  ;®^  and  a  refusal  to  deliver  at  the  place  agreed  upon  and 
subsequent  delivery  elsewhere  will  render  the  carrier  liable  for 
actual  damages  sustained,  as  well  as  punitive  damages  for  a  wilful 
failure  to  deliver.^^    On  a  consignment  of  goods  to  a  place  where 

64.  Wernwag  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  tain  place  cannot  be  made  to  bind 
R.  Co.,  117  Pa.  St.  46,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  the  carrier  to  deliver  them  at  another 
R.  Cas.  515;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  station,  either  for  the  reason  that  the 
Adams,  49  Tex.  748,  30  Am.  Rep.  116,  goods  were  addressed  to  the  consignee 
32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  508.  at  snch  other  station  or  because  the 

65.  Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Wil-  consignee  was  described  as  being  at 
Jiams,  99  Ga.  482,  27   S.   E.  743.  such    other    station.      Wheeler    v.    St. 

66.  D.  Klass  Commission  Co.  v.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Mo.  App.  358, 
Wabash  R.  Co.,  80  Mo.  App.  164,  2  nor  is  such  a  contract  complied  with 
Mo.  App.  Repr.  545;  Loeb.  v.  Wabash  by  delivering  the  freight  at  a  point 
-^  Qo_^  —  Mo.  App.  — ,  85  S-  W.  short  of  such  destination.  Loomis 
118,  and  delivery  is  not  completed  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  17  Mo.  App.  340. 
by  the  carrier  sidetracking  cars  at  67.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  3 
its  yards;  see  209,  254;  Cox  v.  Peter-  Willson,  Civ.  Cas.  Ct.  App.  (Tex.) 
son,  30  Ala.  608,  68  Am.  Dec.  145,  and  513. 

the  acceptance  of  a  part  of  such  goods  68.  Benbow   v.   North    Carolina   R. 

will  not  bar  a  suit   for  non-delivery  Co.,  61  N.  C.   (Phil.  L.)   421,  98  Am. 

o-f  the  remainder;    194,  367.  Dec.  76. 

A  contract  to  carry  goods  to  a  cer-  As   to    special    damage    not   proxi- 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


239 


there  is  no  depot,  warehouse,  agent,  or  even  side  track,  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  carrier,  in  case  the  consignee  is  not  present  to  receive 
the  goods,  to  unload  them  and  leave  them  there  on  the  ground,  if 
not  goods  susceptible  to  injury;  and  the  carrier  has  no  right  be- 
cause the  consignee  is  not  present,  to  carry  them  on  to  the  next 
station  and  leave  them  on  a  side  track,  and  is  liable  for  the  value 
of  the  goods  if  it  does  so.^"  But  where  there  are  two  stations  in  a 
town  for  the  reception  and  delivery  of  freight  by  a  railroad  com- 
pany, the  usage  of  the  place  may  be  shown  to  aid  the  jury  in  de- 
termining at  which  one  freight  addressed  to  the  town  generally 
ought  to  have  been  delivered.  ^^    In  the  absence  of  a  custom  author- 


mate  result. — Where,  in  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  de- 
liver cotton  at  the  destination  named 
in  the  bill  of  lading,  the  consignor 
claimed  damages  suffered  by  reason 
of  the  consignee's  refusal  to  accept 
after  having  procured  samples, 
which  he  would  not  have  done  if  the 
cotton  had  been  delivered  at  the 
proper  place,  plaintiff  could  not  re- 
cover, in  the  absence  of  proof  that 
the  carrier  was  instrumental  in  per- 
miitting  the  consignee  to  procure  the 
samples,  or  that  it  had  any  knowledge 
of  the  contract  between  plaintiff  and 
the  consignee,  since  such  damages 
were  special,  and  not  the  proximate 
result  of  the  carrier's  breach  of  con- 
tract. Gulf,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Pickens 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  58  S.  W.   156. 

69.  Strieker  v.  Leathers,  68  Miss. 
803,  9  So.  821,  13  L.  R.  A.  600. 

70.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gil- 
mer, 89  Ala.  534,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  450,  7  So.  654.  See  also,  South, 
etc.,  Alabama  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  72  Ala. 
451,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  634. 

As  to  goods  susceptible  to  injury 
a  consignee  has  been  held  not  to  be 
entitled  to  have  them  delivered  at  a 
certain  station  where  the  accommo- 
dations were  insufRcient  to  receive  all 


classes  of  goods,  and  the  carrier  was 
accustomed  to  deliver  minerals  there, 
but  other  goods  at  its  general  goods 
station,  some  distance  away.  Thomas 
V.  North  Staffordshire  R.  Co.,  3  Ry. 
&  C.  T.  Cas.  1. 

Freight    destined    to    switches    or 
side  tracks. — Defendant,  as  a  connect- 
ing  carrier,   received   a   car    load   of 
freight,    consigned    to   H.,   for   trans- 
portation to  a  point  on  its  road  where 
it  had  neither  freight  agent  nor  depot 
building.      The   bill   of   lading    issued 
by  the  initial  carrier  showed  that  the 
freight   charges   were   paid,   and   pro- 
vided that  delivery  of  freight  destined 
to  switches  or  side  tracks  having  no 
agent  should  be  complete  upon  switch- 
ing the  car  at  such  side  track.     De- 
fendant carried  the  car  to  the  point 
indicated,    and    side-tracked    it   on    a 
switch  in  front  of  the  office  of  a  lum- 
ber  company,   for   whom   the   freight 
was     really     intended,     though     con- 
signed  to   H.      The   manager   of   the 
lumber   company,  without  consent  of 
either    defendant   or    the    consignors, 
broke  open  the  car,  which  was  sealed 
and  locked,  unloaded  its  contents,  and 
carried  the  same  away,  and  failed  to 
pay  a  draft  made  upon   him   for   its 
value.     In  an  action  it  was  held  that 


240  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

i'/Ang  tlio  agont  of  a  carrier,  at  tlio  request  of  the  consignee,  after 
the  car  has  reached  its  destination,  to  undertake  to  deliver  it  to 
another  phice,  or  to  another  person  than  the  consignee,  such  an 
undertaking-  is  nothing  more  than  a  personal  accommodation  on 
the  part  of  the  agent,  and  cannot  render  his  principal  liableJ^ 
jSTone  of  the  carriers  in  transit  has  a  right  to  require  the  owner 
to  receive  goods  elsewhere  than  at  the  destination  named  in  the 
contract  of  shipment.  He  is  not  obliged  to  receive  them  at  a  trans- 
shipping point,  where  a  connecting  carrier  refused  to  receive  them 
because  they  w^ere  damaged.^*  The  duty  of  a  carrier,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  orders  from  the  shipper,  to  exercise  reasonable  care  to 
protect  his  interest  in  a  sudden  emergency  like  a  strike  preventing 
the  forwarding  of  perishable  goods  to  their  destination,  is  violated 
by  shipping  the  goods  over  another  line  of  its  system  to  another 
place  and  selling  them  there  at  a  less  price  than  could  have  been 
obtained  at  the  place  of  destination,  to  which  the  goods  might  have 
been  forwarded  by  another  available  route.^*  So,  the  carrier  is 
liable  for  loss  resulting  from  deviation  from  the  selected  route, 
when  the  freight  was  not  of  such  perishable  nature  as  to  necessi- 
tate its  immediate  transshipment,  without  notice  to  the  shipper.'^*'^ 
Delivery  must  be  made  by  the  carrier  at  a  reasonabl^^  safe  and 
convenient  place  for  the  consignee  to  receive  the  goods,  and  if 

the  delivery  was  complete,  and  that  receive  cotton  from  Texas  for  trans- 
defendant  was  not  liable  to  the  con-  portation  to  European  ports.  Reiss 
signer  for  the  loss  of  the  contents  of  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Fed.  533,  39 
the  car.  Hill  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  C.  C.  A.  149;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Co.,  67  Ark.  402,  55  S.  W.  216.  Reiss,  99  Fed.  1006,  39  C.  C.  A.  6S0, 
71.  Homesly  v.  Elias,  66  N.  C.  330.  affd.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reiss,  183 
The  delivery  of  cotton  by  defendant  U.  S.  621,  22  Sup.  Ct.  253,  46  L.  Ed. 
at  its  wharf  at  West  Wego,  which  is  358;  Marande  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
on  the  opposite  side  of  the  river  from  102  Fed.  246.  42  C.  C.  A.  317. 
New  Orleans,  was  a  compliance  with  72.  Melbourne  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
the  bill  of  lading  requiring  its  de-  R.  Co.,  88  Ala.  443,  6  So.  762. 
livery  at  the  port  of  New  Orleans,  al-  73.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  A.  B.  Frank 
though  West  Wego  was  not  at  that  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  48  S.  W.  210. 
time  within  the  boundaries  of  the  74.  Alabama  &  V.  R.  Co.  v.  Bri- 
port  of  New  Orleans,  as  defined  in  the  chetti,  72  Miss.  891,  18  So.  421,  530. 
statute,  it  being,  in  a  well  under-  74a.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Odil, 
stood  commercial  and  business  sen^e,  96  Tenn.  (12  Pickle)  61,  33  S.  W. 
the  part  of  that  port  where  steam-  611.  See  also.  Liability  for  delay, 
ship  companies  rightfully  expected  to  chap.   8. 


TERAii:;ATION   OF   LIABILITY.  241 

made  at  an  unusual  and  unfit  place  the  carrier  will  be  liable.^^ 
If  the  consignee  accepts  a  delivery  of  the  goods  at  a  place  or  in  a 
manner  different  from  what  a  common  carrier  is  liable  by  law  to 
deliver  them,  the  business  of  removing  them  becomes  from  that 
time  his  business,  and  the  carrier  cannot  be  held  liable  for  the  acts 
or  omissions  of  those  employed  to  do  the  work.''^  But  a  shipper 
of  goods  billed  for  a  designated  place  does  not  relieve  the  initial 
carrier  from  liability  as  an  insurer  of  their  safe  delivery  at  various 
intermediate  points  according  to  an  agreement  between  him  and 
the  carrier  to  whom  he  directed  them  to  be  delivered,  incurred 
by  such  initial  carrier's  wrongful  delivery  of  them  to  another 
carrier,  by  paying  the  latter  the  freight  for  the  entire  route  to 
induce  it  to  deliver  goods  at  one  of  the  intermediate  points,  and 
an  agreement  by  it  to  carry  the  remaining  portion  to  their  destina- 
tion at  its  own  cost."  An  option  given  a  carrier  by  contract  as  to 
the  place  of  delivery  to  the  owner  is  waived  by  its  refusal  to  de- 
liver at  all.^^  A  carrier,  by  placing  a  car  of  goods  on  a  side  track 
at  a  point  designated  as  most  convenient  for  unloading  by  the 
person  to  whom  the  consignee  has  sold  the  goods  and  directed  the 
carrier  to  deliver  them  without  presentation  of  bill  of  lading,  and 
by  notifying  such  person  thereof,  makes  a  sufficient  delivery  to 
him  of  the  goods  as  against  one  to  whom  the  consignee  thereafter 
transfers  the  bill  of  lading.''^  A  deposit  of  goods  with  notice, 
express  or  implied,  by  an  initial  carrier,  at  any  place  where  the 
second  carrier  has  control  of  them,  conformably  with  usage  created 
by  the  course  of  business  between  the  two  carriers,  is  a  sufficient 
delivery  to  discharge  the  initial  carrier.*'^     Where  a  railroad  places 

75.  Benbow  v.  North  Carolina  R.  15  Ohio  Civ.  Ct.  R.  637,  8  0.  C.  D.  727. 
Co.,  61  N.  C.  (PhiL  L.)  421,  98  Am.  .y.  Anchor  Mill  Co.  v.  Burlington, 
Dec.  76.  Delivery  must  be  made  at  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Iowa,  262,  71  N.  W. 
the  place  of  business  of  the  consignee  255. 

and    not    at    that    of    another    party.  80.  Texas,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v,   Clayton, 

Mahon  v.  Blake,  125  Mass.  477.  51  U.  S.  App.  676,  84  Fed.  305,  9  Am. 

76.  Jewell  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  821,  28  C.  C.  A. 
55  N.  H.  84,  11  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  596.  142;    Aetna    Ins.    Co.   v.    Wheeler,    5 

77.  Brown  &  Haywood  Co.  v.  Lans.  (N.  Y.)  480,  affd.  49  N.  Y. 
Pennsylvania  Co.,  63  Minn.  546,  65  616;  Mills  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co., 
N.  W.  D61.  2  Am.  Sc  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  45  N.  Y.  622,  6  Am.  Rep.  152;  Van 
S.  640.     Pee  also.  Waiver,  §  36,  post.  Santvoord  v.  St.  John,  6  Hill  (N.  Y.), 

78.  Buckeye  Pipe  Line  Co.  v.  Fee,  157;     Converse    v.    Norwich    Transp. 

10 


242  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

bulky  freight  to  be  unloaded  by  the  consignee  at  the  point  desig- 
nated by  him,  and  possession  is  turned  over  to  him,  its  liability  as 
a  carrier  terminates,  and  it  is  liable  for  subsequent  danuiges  only 
■when  they  result  from  its  negligence.*^  Under  a  statute,  requiring 
a  common  carrier  to  deliver  property  to  the  consignee  at  the  place 
to  which  it  is  addressed  in  the  manner  usual  at  that  place,  a  rail- 
road company  is  liable  for  freight,  as  an  insurer,  until  delivery 
to  the  consignee  as  provided/^  The  extraordinary  liability  of  a 
carrier  as  insurer  of  the  goods  continues  until  the  proper  delivery 
at  the  destination.*^  When  goods  are  received  by  a  carrier  for 
shipment,  the  common-law  liability  of  the  carrier  as  an  insurer 
attaches,  until  the  goods  reach  the  point  of  destination  and  the 
consignee  has  been  notified.''* 

§  24.  Right  of  owner  or  consignee  to  change  place  of  delivery. 

The  instructions  of  the  owner  or  freighter,  as  to  the  delivery  of 
goods,  must  be  obeyed,  and  he  may  change  their  destination  while 
in  transitu  and  direct  delivery  at  an  intermediate  point  without 
changing  the  contract  with  the  carrier.  No  responsibility  for  loss 
is  incurred  by  the  carrier  where  it  obeys  such  instructions,  but  it 
is  liable  if  the  directions  given  are  not  obeyed.*^    Where  delivery 

Co.,  33  Conn.  166;  Hewitt  v.  Chicago,  pleted  the  carriage  by  the  actual  de- 

etc.    R.  Co.,  63  Iowa,  611,  19  N.  W.  livery  of  the  goods  to  the  consignees 

790;   Truax  v.   Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  at  their  place  of  business.     Id. 

Co.,    3    Houst.    (Del.)    233;    Pratt   v.  84.  R.    W.    Williamson    &    Co.    v. 

Grand  Trunl-:  R.  Co.,  95  U.  S.  43,  24  Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.   (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

L.  Ed.   336;    Palmer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  138   S.  W.  807. 

R.    Co.,    56    Cflnn.    137,    13    Atl.    818;  85.  Michigan  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

Kentucky,    etc.,    Ins.    Co.   v.    Western  v.  Day,  20  111.   (10  Peck)   275,  71  Am. 

&  A.  R.  Co.,  67  Tenn.   (8  Baxt.)   268.  Dec.    278;    Strahorn   v.   Union   Stock 

81.  Chicao-o,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Kelm,  Yards,  etc.,  Co.,  43  111.  424,  92  Am. 
121  Minn.  343.  141  N.  W.  295.  Dec.    142;     Hartmann    v.    Louisville, 

82.  Jolly  V.  Atchison  &  S.  F.  Ry.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Mo.  App.  88;  Scot- 
Qfy    Cal.  App.  — ,  131  Pac.  1057.  horn  v.  South  Staffordshire  R.  Co.,  8 

83.  Arkadelphia  Milling  Co.  v.  Exch.  341;  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Smoker  Merchandise  Co.,  100  Ark.  Bartlett.  7  H.  &  N.  400,  8  Jur.  N.  S. 
37,  139  S.  W.  680.  58,   10   W.  R.    109:    Cork   Distilleries 

The  liability  of  a  drayage  company  Co.  v.  Great  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L. 

as  a  common  carrier  of  goods,  receiv-  R.  7  H.  L.   C^as.  269,  8  Ir.  R.   C.  L. 

in<r    goods    from    a   car    on    a    house  334;    Sutherland  v.  Peoria  Bank,   78 

track,    continued    until    it    had    com-  Ky.  S50,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  368, 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


243 


is  directed  or  demanded  at  an  intermediate  point,  the  carrier  may- 
demand  and  is  entitled  to  receive  full  freight  charges  for  the  en- 
tire distance,  and  such  incidental  expenses  as  may  have  been  in- 
curred by  reason  of  the  change  of  destination.*®  But  although  a 
consignor  or  consignee  of  goods  may  change  his  instructions  as  to 
their  destination,  and  substitute  a  different  place  of  delivery,  he 
must  do  so  during  the  transit,  and  not  after  their  destination  has 
been  reached  and  the  carrier's  obligation  fulfilled."  After  the 
goods  have  reached  their  original  destination  the  undertaking  of 
the  carrier  for  transportation  is  at  an  end  and  it  is  then  the  right 
and  interest  of  the  carrier  to  see  that  the  goods  are  delivered  to 


the  right  is  the  same  where  the  goods 
have  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  con- 
necting carrier. 

86.  The  Gazelle,  128  U.  S.  474,  a 
sihipowner  who  is  prevented  from  per- 
forming the  voyage  by  a  wrongful  act 
of  the  charterer  is  prima  facie  en- 
titled to  the  freight  that  he  would 
have  earned,  less  what  it  would  have 
cost  him  to  earn  it;  Clark  v.  Massa- 
chusetts, etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  19  Mass.  (3 
Pick.)  104,  13  Am.  Dec.  400,  where 
a  ship  was  so  damaged  that  it  would 
require  two  months  to  repair  her,  her 
master  may  retain  the  cargo  and  earn 
his  freight,  since  neither  party  is  at 
liberty  to  abandon  the  contract  of  af- 
freightment, but  for  legal  cause,  or 
with  the  consent  of  the  other;  Braith- 
waite  V.  Aikin,  1  N.  D.  475,  48  N.  W. 
361;  Violett  v.  Stettinius,  5  Cranch 
(C.  C),  559;  Shipton  v.  Thornton, 
9  Ad.  &  El.  314,  36  E.  C.  L.  150; 
Luke  V.  Lyde,  2  Burr.  887;  Thomp- 
son V.  Small,  1  C.  B.  328,  50  E.  C.  L. 
328. 

Where  a  common  carrier,  who  has 
undertaken  to  carry  goods  by  water 
to  a  certain  place,  is  obliged  by  low 
■water  to  land,  and  store  them  at  an 
intermediate  port,  and  the  owner  ac- 
cepts  them   at   the  latter   place,   and 


pays  all  charges  for  freight  and  stor- 
age, the  common  carrier  is  discharged 
from  all  subsequent  liability  on  ac- 
count of  his  contract.  Bennett  v. 
Byram,  38  Miss.  17,  75  Am.  Dec.  90. 
Must  be  sufiScient  demand. — The 
carrier  is  not  liable  for  failure  to  de- 
liver at  an  intermediate  station  in 
the  absence  of  proof  of  a  sufficient  de- 
mand for  such  delivery.  Worden  v. 
Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  13  Ont.  Rep, 
652,  30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  127. 

Where  the  consignee  of  part  of  the 
cargo  of  a  vessel  which  had  put  into 
port  in  distress  and  was  detained 
four  months  for  repairs  demanded 
his  goods,  offering  to  pay  full  freight 
and  incidental  expenses  and  to  sign  a 
general  average  bond,  the  vessel  was 
held  liable  for  the  damage  by  leakage 
and  deterioration  to  the  cargo  when 
delivered  finally  at  the  port  of  origi- 
nal destination.  The  Martha,  35  Fed. 
313. 

87.  Melbourne  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  88  Ala.  443,  6  So.  762,  or  to 
another  party  than  the  consignee, 
such  an  undertaking  is  nothing  more 
than  a  personal  accommodation  on 
the  part  of  the  agent,  and  cannot 
render  his  principal  liable. 


244:  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

iiouo  but  the  true  owner,  so  that  where  an  agent  collected  money 
for  his  principal  and  forwarded  it  to  him  hy  an  express  company, 
but  the  latter  could  not  deliver  the  same  because  the  consignee 
could  not  be  found,  the  agent  could  not  maintain  an  action  against 
the  company,  he  not  being  the  owner  or  having  any  special  interest 
in  the  goods.^^  Prima  faciei  the  consignee  is  the  owner  of  the 
goods  in  transit,  the  property  therein  vesting  in  the  consignee  upon 
delivery  to  the  carrier,  the  latter  being  commonly  the  agent  of  the 
consignee,  and  he  only  can  sue  the  carrier  for  non-delivery,  though 
a  receipt  was  given  to  the  consignor.^*  The  carrier  is  entitled  to 
consider  and  is  bound  to  treat  the  consignee  as  such  owner  unless 
it  is  advised  that  a  different  relation  exists,  or  unless  notice  of 
such  fact  is  to  be  implied  from  the  manner  of  shipment,  as  where 
the  o'oods  are  sent  C.  0.  D.^**  The  carrier  is  bound  to  deliver  the 
goods  at  their  destined  place,  to  the  consignee,  or  as  the  consignee 
may  direct.  The  carrier  is  therefore  entitled  to  deliver  the  goods 
at  a  ditlerent  place  from  that  stated  in  the  instructions  of  the  con- 
signor, when  directed  to  do  so  by  the  consignee,  or  when  the  con- 
signee is  willing  to  accept  them  at  a  different  place.  The  con- 
signee, or  his  authorized  agent,  may  receive  goods  addressed  to 
him  in  the  hands  of  a  carrier  at  any  place,  either  before  or  after 
their  arrival  at  their  place  of  destination,  and  such  acceptance 
operates  as  a  discharge  of  the  carrier  from  his  liability  to  the  con- 
sionor.  So  a  delivery  in  accordance  with  instructions  of  the  con- 
sio-nee  will  relieve  the  carrier  from  liability  for  any  consequences 
resulting  from  a  change  in  the  place  of  delivery.*^     But  where 

88.  Thompson  v.  Fargo,  49  N.  Y.  Bank,  78  Ky.  250,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
188  10  Am.  Rep.  342;  Duff  v.  Budd,  Cas.  3&8;  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
3  Brod.  &  B.  177,  7  E.  C.  L.  399;  Bartlett,  7  H.  &  N.  400;  Mitchell  v. 
Krudler  v.  Ellison,  47  N.  Y.  36,  7  Am.  Ede,  11  Ad.  &  El.  888,  39  E.  C.  L. 
Rep.  402;  Green  v.  Clarke,  13  N.  Y.  260;  Foster  v.  Frampton,  6  B.  &  C. 
343_           '  107,  13  E.  C.  L.  111. 

89.  Thompson  v.  Fargo,  supra;  Agent  with  limited  authority. — 
Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whitesel,  11  Where  dutiable  goods  are  sent  into 
Ind.  55.  ^^*®    United     States      from      Canada, 

90.  Price  v.  Powell,  3  N.  Y.  322;  marked  to  the  care  of  another  person 
Sweet  V.  Barney,  23  N.  Y.   335.  than  the  consignee,  in  order  that  such 

91.  Sweet  v.  Barney,  23  N.  Y.  335;  person  may  pay  the  duties,  under  an 
Lewis  V.  Western  R.  Corp.,  11  Mete.  arrangement  by  which  such  goods 
(Mass.)     509;    Sutherland    v.   Peoria  come  in  bond,  this  giTCs  the  agent  no 


TERMINATION   OF  LIABILITY.  245 

the  consignor  is  kno^vn  to  the  carrier  to  be  the  ovmer,  or  the  carrier 
has  notice,  actual  or  implied,  that  the  ownership  of  the  goods  is  not 
in  the  consignee,  the  carrier  must  be  understood  to  contract  with 
the  consignor  only,  for  his  interest,  upon  such  terms  as  he  dictates 
in  regard  to  delivery,  and  the  consignee  is  to  be  regarded  simply 
as  an  agent  selected  by  him  to  receive  the  goods  at  the  place  indi- 
cated, and  instructions  from  such  a  consignee  will  constitute  no 
defense  to  an  action  for  a  delivery  not  in  accordance  with  the 
original  instructions  of  the  consignor.^^ 

§  25.  Statutory  requirements  as  to  delivery  of  grain. 

Under  a  statute  providing  that  every  railroad  company,  which 
shall  receive  any  grain  in  bulk  for  transportation,  shall  deliver  it 
to  any  elevator,  warehouse,  or  place  to  which  it  may  be  directed, 
if  such  warehouse  or  place  can  be  reached  by  any  track  which  can 
be  used  by  the  company,  where  a  car  of  grain  is  received  by  a  rail- 
road company  on  its  line  of  road,  billed  to  an  elevator  on  a  track- 
it  must  deliver  the  car  at  the  elevator;  and  it  cannot  discharge 
its  duty,  by  leaving  it  on  its  own  side  track,^^  nor  by  delivering  it 
to  any  warehouse  other  than  that  to  which  it  is  consigned,  except 
when  the  consent  of  the  owner  or  consignee  has  been  obtained.^^ 
The  relaxation  of  the  common  law  rule  requiring  an  actual  de- 
livery to  the  consignee,  in  fixing  the  liability  of  railroads,  by 
reason  of  their  inability,  because  of  their  methods  of  traiisporta- 

authority    to    change    their    destina-  v.   Staiibro,   87   III.   195,   18   Am.   Ry. 

tion;  and  a  carrier  who,  Ivnowing  the  Rep.  180. 

limited  authority  thus  conferred  upon  94.  Vincent     v.     Chicago   &    A.    R. 

the    agent,    upon    his    order    delivers  Co.,    49    lU.    33,    explaining   the    obli- 

them   to   persons   not  entitled   to   re-  gation  of  railroad  corporations,  both 

ceive  them,  is  liable  for  a  conversion.  at  common  law  and  under  the  stat- 

Claflin    V.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    89  ute,  and  the  grounds  upon  which  that 

Mass.    (7  Allen),  241.  obligation    may    be    enforced    by    in- 

92.  Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Dick-  junction,  with  reference  to  the  usages 
eon,  94  U.  S.    (4  Otto)   549.  and   public   interests   connected   with 

93.  Galeaburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  West,  the  management  of  grain  elevators, 
108  111.  App.  504.  The  statute  ap-  in  Chicago  and  other  cities.  Arthur 
plies  only  to  shipments  of  grain  in  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Minn.  95, 
bulk  and  not  to  any  other  merchan-  35  N.  W.  718,  as  to  usage  at  Duluth 
dise.  Stetler  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  in  the  delivery  of  wheat  to  a  public 
49  Wis.  609;  Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  warehouseman. 


24G  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

tion,  to  make  such  delivery,  and  substituting  a  delivery  at  a  safe 
depot  for  a  personal  delivery,*^  is  not  maintained  when  the  con- 
signee's place  of  business,  to  which  goods  are  consigned,  can  be 
reached  by  a  track  used  by  the  railroad  company,  but  the  common 
law  rule  of  an  actual  delivery  applies  in  such  cases.®®  A  statute 
requiring  that  all  railroad  companies  shall  deliver  grain  to  any 
elevator  that  can  be  reached  by  any  track  which  "  can  be  used  " 
by  such  companies  does  not  refer  to  mere  physical  possibility.  A 
company  cannot  be  compelled  to  run  cars  over  a  track  oAvned  by 
other  persons  or  for  the  use  of  which  it  has  no  license  or  contract." 
Nor  is  the  company  liable  under  such  a  statute,  unless  the  grain 
was  consigned  to  a  particular  warehouse  at  the  time  of  shipment.'* 

§  26    When  place  of  destination  is  not  on  carrier's  line. 

A  carrier  is  liable  for  detention  of  goods  addressed  to  a  specified 
place  not  on  its  line  "  via  "  of  another  place  on  its  line,  at  the  latter 
place,  without  using  reasonable  available  means  to  forward  them 
to  their  destination  or  notifying  the  consignee,  notwithstanding 
any  custom  of  its  own  not  communicated  to  the  shipper  or  con- 
signee.  Where  there  is  no  connecting  carrier  to  which  the  goods 
may  be  delivered  for  further  transportation,  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
carrier  to  store  the  goods  in  its  warehouse  or  leave  them  in  charge 
of  some  responsible  warehouseman  at  the  nearest  point  on  its  line 
to  their  destination  and  notify  the  consignee.  Its  liability,  there^ 
after,  becomes  at  most  that  of  a  warehouseman  only.®*  A  carrier 
of  goods,  and  not  the  shipper,  is  liable  for  the  mistakes  of  its 
agents  or  guide  books  on  which  it  relies  as  to  the  proper  place  of 
delivery  of  the  goods;  and,  where  a  shipment  is  billed  to  a  point 

95.  S^'e  Acts  constituting  delivery  93  III.  601;  Stetler  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
and  acceptance,  §  3,  chap.  4.  R.  Co.,  49  Wis.  609. 

96.  Vincent  v.  Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.,  98.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stan- 
49  111.  33;  Merchants'  Despatch  bro,  87  111.  195,  18  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  180, 
Transp.  Co.  v.  H<\llock,  64  111.  284,  a  mere  demand  by  the  consignee  at 
rule  applied  to  a  corporation  of  the  place  of  destination  that  the 
freighters  owning  a  line  of  freight  grain  be  delivered  at  such  place  is  not 
cars  plying  between  the  Atlantic  sufficient  to  subject  the  company  to 
Seaboard  and  the  West;  Coe  v.  Louis-  the  penalties  of  the  statute. 

ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Fed.  Rep.  775.  99.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  DeWitt, 

97.  Hoyt  V.  Chicago  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,      1  Colo.  App.  419,  29  Pac.  524. 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY.  24:7 

which  ii5  not  on  the  carrier's  line,  but  near  it,  what  is  the  proper 
place  of  delivery  by  the  carrier  is  a  question  for  the  jury,  where 
the  evidence  is  conflicting.^ 

§  27.  Time  of  transportation  and  delivery  in  general. 

In  respect  to  the  carriage  of  goods,  a  common  carrier  is  not  an 
insurer  as  to  the  time  of  the  delivery,  in  the  absence  of  an  express 
contract.  While  it  is  responsible  for  the  safety  and  final  delivery 
thereof,  and  the  general  rule  is  that  nothing  can  exonerate  it  from 
that  responsibility  but  the  act  of  God  or  the  public  enemy,  it  is 
responsible  only  for  the  exercise  of  due  diligence  in  regard  to  the 
time  of  delivery.^  A  contract  for  the  shipment  of  goods,  which 
does  not  specify  any  particular  time  for  their  delivery,  requires 
them  to  be  delivered  within  a  reasonable  time  after  they  have  been 
received  for  transportation,  and  this  is  the  rule  where  there  is  no 
written  contract,  as  the  law  implies  such  a  contract ;  and  an  action 
may  be  maintained  on  the  contract  for  unreasonable  delay  in  its 
performance.^  In  the  absence  of  special  contract  there  is  no  abso- 
lute duty  resting  upon  a  carrier  to  deliver  the  goods  intrusted  to 
it  within  what,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  would  be  a  reason- 
able time.  The  actual  circumstances  must  all  be  considered,  and 
what  is  a  reasonable  time  is  largely  a  question  of  fact  dependent 

1.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Rem-  .A'e6.— Denman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
heim,  113  Ala.  489,  21  So.  405.  Co.,  52  Neb.  140,  71  N.  W.  967. 

2.  Cormack  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Tex. — Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Lang- 
Co.,  196  N.  Y.  442,  90  N.  E.  55,  revg.  behn  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  150  S.  W. 
judg.  106  App.  Div.  909,  110  N.  Y.  1188;  Giilf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baugli 
Supp.  1125;  Parsons  v.  Hardy,  14  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  42  S.  W.  245,  43 
Wend.    (N.  Y.)   215.  S.  W.  557. 

The  carrier   is   under  the  duty   to  W.  Ya. — McGraw  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 

transport  and   deliver  freight  within  R.  Co.,  18  W.  Va.  361,  41  Am.  Rep. 

a   reasonable  time  and   is  not  bound  696.    See  Liability  for  delay,  chap.  8. 

only  to  the  exercise  of  ordinary  care  A   mere    statement     of     a     station 

-to  so  transfer  and  deliver.    Gulf,  etc.,  agent,  to  one  about  to  deliver  goods 

Ry.  Co.  V.  Shults    (Tex.   Civ.  App.),  for    shipment   over    a    railroad,    that 

129  S.  W.  845.  the  goods   should   arrive   at  the   pro- 

3.  ind. — Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  posed  destination  at  a  certain  time, 
V.  Knox,  —  Ind.  — ,  98  N.  E.  295.  is  not  a  contract  to  carry  them  within 

Md. — Philadelphia,   etc.,   R.    Go.   t.      such  time.     Sauter  v.  Atchison,  etc., 
Lehman,   5R   Md.    209,   40   Am.    Rep.      Ry.  Co.,  78  Kan.  331,  97  Pac.  434. 
-415,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  194. 


248  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

upon  such  circumstances;  and  the  only  duty  resting  upon  tho 
carrier  is  to  use  reasonable  efforts  and  due  diligence  under  all  tho 
circumstances  to  forward  the  goods  to  their  destination.*    Whether 
goods  shipped  are  delivered  by  the  carrier  within  a  reasonable  time 
is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury,  where  the  facts  admit  of  more 
than  one  fair  conclusion,  and  depends  upon  the  circumstances  of 
each  case,  including  the  time  ordinarily  required  for  carriage  be- 
tween the  two  points,  the  preparations  made  by  the  carrier,  whether 
ample  or  not,  the  effort  at  despatch,  the  information  given  by  the 
shipper  of  peculiar  reasons  for  speedy  transit  and  delivery,  the 
character  of  the  freight,  and  kindred  circumstances.     The  mode 
of  conveyance  in  use  by  the  carrier,  the  distance  the  goods  are  to 
be  transported,  the  season  of  the  year,  the  character  of  the  weather 
where  it  may  interfere  with  transportation,  the  ordinary  facilities 
for  transportation,  the  obstacles,   if  any,   interposed  by  natural 
causes  or  the  conduct  of  men  to  be  overcome,  are  facts  to  be  con- 
sidered.^   The  tender  by  a  common  carrier,  to  a  consignee,  of  goods 
intrusted  to  its  care,  must  be  reasonable  in  respect  to  time,  place, 
and  manner;  and  this  is  a  question  for  the  jury.     If  the  goods 
are  tendered  after  the  hours  of  business,  or  when  the  consignee 
is  unable  to  receive  them,  such  tender  will  not  discharge  the  car- 
rier.®    An  offer  to  deliver  freight,  or  passenger's  baggage,  if  made 
at  a  proper  time,  discharges  the  carrier  from  its  liability  as  a 
carrier,  and,  if  the  goods  remain  afterwards  in  its  custody,  it 
holds  them  as  a  bailee,  and  is  accountable  for  them  according  to 
the  terms,  express  or  implied,  of  such  bailment.     An  offer  to  de- 
liver a  money  package  or  specie  to  a  consignee  need  not  be  made 
during  banking  hours,  unless  such  is  the  special  engagement,  or 
the  established  usage  of  the  place,  in  order  thus  to  change  the 

4.  Greismer  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  188,  41  Am. 
Co.,  103  N.  Y.  563,  55  Am.  Rep.  837,  Rep.  696;  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  CJo.  v. 
26  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  287,  reivg.  34  Hazen,  84  111.  36,  25  Am.  Rep.  422; 
Hun  (N.  Y.),  50.  See  also.  Brooks  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hollowell, 
T.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  N.  Y.  65  Ind.  188,  32  Am.  Rep.  63. 
Supp.   961.  6.  Hill    V.   Humphreys,   5    W.   &  S. 

5.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flour-  (Pa.)  123,  39  Am.  Dec.  117;  Eagle 
ney,  75  Ga.  745;  McGraw  v.  Balti-  v.  White,  6  Whart.  (Pa.)  505,  37  Am. 
more,   etc.,    R.   Co.,   18   W.   Va.   361,  Dec.  434. 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY.  249 

carrier's  responsibility  to  that  of  a  bailee.''  Delivery  may  be  made 
on  Sunday  or  on  a  legal  holiday,  unless  such  delivery  is  made 
tmlawful  by  statute  or  is  contrary  to  established  usage,  and 
where  there  is  an  established  usage  or  course  of  dealing  the  con- 
signee is  entitled  to  a  reasonable  time  after  that  day  to  remove 
the  goods.^  A  railroad  company  may  withhold  from  the  owner 
goods  shipped  over  its  road,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether 
the  bill  of  lading  correctly  states  the  amount  due,  or  whether  a 
waybill  in  its  possession  sets  forth  the  true  amount,  but  it  can 
hold  the  goods  only  for  a  reasonable  time.*  A  delay  of  a  month 
in  the  transportation  of  freight  a  distance  of  thirty-three  miles 
is  unreasonable,  and  the  carrier  is  liable  for  the  damages  sus- 
tained.^" A  promise,  without  consideration,  made  by  a  carrier's 
railroad  agent  to  use  his  best  endeavors  to  deliver  to  a  consignee, 
at  3  A.  M.,  goods  arriving  at  night,  will  not  support  an  action  for 
damages  for  failure  to  so  deliver  goods  shipped  several  years  after- 
wards from  a  station  in  another  State,  without  any  contract  by 
the  agent  at  that  point  to  deliver  other  than  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  business.^^  Although  a  permit  issued  by  a  steamship  company 
designated  the  particular  day  on  which  certain  goods  were  to  be 
delivered  on  the  wharf  for  shipment,  a  railroad  company  trans- 

7.  Young  V.  Smith,  33  Ky.  (3  days  within  which  consignees  might 
Dana)  91,  28  Am.  Dec.  57;  Marshall  discharge  the  cargo,  the  question 
V.  American  Express  Co.,  7  Wis.  1,  whether  they  used  reasonable  dili- 
73  Am.  Dec.  381.  Sec  Merwin  v.  But-  gence  in  unloading  was  held  to  be  one 
ler,  17  Conn.  138;  Pate  v.  Henry,  5  for  the  jury.  Scheu  v.  Benedict,  116 
Stew.  &  P.    (Ala.)    101.  N.  Y.  510,  15  Am.  St.  Rep.  426.    The 

8.  Shelton  v.  Merchants'  Despatch  owner  of  goods  is  entitled  to  recover 
Transp.  Co.,  59  N.  Y.  258;  J.  Russell  for  damages  occasioned  by  delivery 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  New  Haven  Steamship  of  the  goods  on  a  stormy  day.  The 
Co.,  50  N.  Y,   121;   Sleade  v.  Payne,  Grafton,  1  Blatchf.    (U.  S.)    173. 

14  La.  Ann.  457;  Richardson  v.  Giod-  9.  Beasley    v.    Baltimore    &    0.    R. 
dard,  23   How.    (U.   S.)    28.     Demur-  Co.,  27  App.  D.  C.  595. 
rage  cannot  ibe   charged   for   Sunday  10.  Chesapeake  &  0.  R.  Co.  v.  Sauls- 
end  Labor  day  following  the  expira-  berry,  91  Ky.  Law  Rep.   624,  103  S. 
tion  of  the  time  within  which  the  con-  W.  254. 

signee  is  required  to  unload.     Gates  11.  Lippman    v.    Pennsylvania     R. 

V.  Ryan,  37  l«ed.  154.  Co.,  127  App.  Div.  187,  11  N.  Y.  Supp. 

Where  Sunday   and  a  holiday  and  522. 
two  rainy  days  were  part  of  the  five 


O50  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

porting  the  goods  to  the  wharf  had  no  right  to  disregard  the  ex- 
press directions  of  the  shipper  that  the  goods  should  be  delivered 
on  the  wharf  in  the  forenoon  of  that  day,  and  to  rely  on  the  state- 
ment of  such  permit;  and  where  the  railroad  company  delivered 
tlie  goods  in  the  afternoon,  and  they  were  refused  by  the  steam- 
ship company  on  account  of  lack  of  room  on  the  vessel,  the  railroad 
company  was  liable  to  the  shipper  for  resulting  damages/^     It  is 
the  duty  of  a  carrier  receiving  freight  to  be  transported  to  carry 
it  without  unnecessary  delay  and  a  delay  of  twenty-four  hours  at 
a  station  on  the  way  will  be  deemed  unnecessary,  unless  explained 
by  something  which  the  law  recognizes  as  sufficient/^     Under  a 
statute  requiring  carriers  to  transport  goods  within  a  reasonable 
time  and  providing  that  in  reckoning  what  is  a  reasonable  time  a 
delay  of  two  days  at  the  initial  point  and  forty-eight  hours  at  one 
intermediate  point  for  each  one  hundred  miles  of  transportation 
shall  not  be  charged  against  the  carrier  as  unreasonable,  it  was 
held  that  a  carrier  was  not  entitled  to  a  deduction  of  intervening 
Sundays,  because  the  law  prohibits  the  running  of  freight  trains 
on  Sundays  between  sunrise  and  sunset.^*     But  where  one  of  the 
tw^o  days  next  after  the  delivery  of  freight  to  the  carrier  for  trans- 
portion  was   Sunday,   such  day  was  properly  deducted,   not  as 
Sunday,  but  as  one  of  the  two  initial  days  of  non-action  which  the 
carrier  was  entitled  to  before  it  was  required  to  begin  the  trans- 
portation/^   Under  a  statute  requiring  carriers  to  transport  freight 
promptly  on  receiving  notice  that  prompt  shipment  is  required, 
notice  must  be  given  within  such  time  before  shipment  that  the  car- 
rier's agent,  notwithstanding  his  other  duties,  by  exercising  reason- 
able diligence  may  keep  the  notice  in  mind,  it  not  being  necessary 
to  give  notice  of  the  exact  time  of  shipment ;  such  notice  must  be 
given  to  the  shipping  agent ;  and  may  be  given  by  the  consignee  or 
holder  of  the  bill  of  lading  through  another,  direct  notice  not  being 

12.  White  V.  North  G«rmaJi  Lloyd  R.  Co.,  145  N.  C.  23e,  59  S.  E.  55; 
S.  S.  Co.,  31  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  268,  Davis  &  Hooks  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line 
113  N.  Y.  Supp.  805.  R.  Co.,  145  N.  C.  207,  59  S.  E.  53. 

13.  Jeffries  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15.  Davis  &  Hooks  v.  Atlantic 
S8  Neb.  268,  129  N.  W.  273.  Coast  Line  R.  Co.,  supra. 

14.  Watson  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY.  251 

essential.^®  Under  demurrage  and  delayage  rule  of  a  railroad  com- 
mission fixing  a  charge  against  carriers  for  each  day's  detention  of 
a  car  in  transit,  without  allowance  for  free  time,  and  allowing  a 
day's  free  time  at  transfer  points,  a  carrier  is  not  deprived  of  such 
allowance  by  a  delay  in  transit/^  Where  flour  was  shipped  on 
February  12,  1906,  and  thereafter  remained  in  the  possession  of 
a  railroad  company  until  July  1,  when  it  was  found  and  tendered 
to  plaintiff,  plaintiff  was  bound  to  receive  the  flour  when  tendered 
notwithstanding  the  delay;  the  carrier's  liability  being  to  render 
compensation  for  damages  growing  out  of  the  delay,  and  not  for 
loss  of  the  flour.^* 

§  28.  When  personal  delivery  is  required. — The  common  law 
rule. — Rule  as  to  express  companies. 
At  an  early  day,  when  all  goods  were  carried  upon  land  in 
wagons,  it  was  generally  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  deliver  the  goods 
to  the  consignee  personally,  or  at  his  place  of  residence  or  business. 
This  was  so  because  the  carrier  could  go  anywhere  with  his  wagons 
and  make  delivery.  It,  therefore,  became  the  rule,  under  the 
common  law,  that,  in  the  absence  of  a  special  contract  or  usage  to 
the  contrary,  carriers  by  land  are  bound  to  deliver  or  tender  goods 
to  the  consignee  at  his  residence  or  place  of  business,  and  until 
this  is  done  they  are  not  relieved  from  their  responsibility  as  car- 
riers.^^  But  carriers  upon  water,  as  they  were  confined  by  their 
means  of  transportation  to  the  water,  were  bound  only  to  deliver 

16.  Mills  V.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  82  S.  Mo.— Bartlett  v.  The  Philadelphia, 

C.  242,   64  S.  E.   238.  32  Mo.  256. 

17."  Keystone      Lumber      Yard      v.  N.   T. — Witbeck  v.  Holland,  45  N. 

Yazoo  &  M.  V.  R.  Co.,  97  Miss.  433,  Y.  13,  6  Am.  Rep.  23;  Fenner  v.  Buf- 

53  So.  8.  falo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  N.  Y.  505,  4  Am. 

18.  Moody  V.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  79  Rep.  709;  Gibson  v.  Culver,  17  Wend. 
S.  C.  297,  60  S.  E.  711.  (N.  Y.)    305,  31  Am.  Dec.  297;   Fisk 

19.  Ind. — Bansemer  v.  Toledo  &  W.  v.   Newton,    1    Den.    (N.   Y. )    45,    43 
Ry.   Co.,    25    Ind.   434,    87   Am.   Dec.  Am.  Dec.  649. 

367,  but  this  rule  does  not  apply  to  Eng. — Evans  v.  Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

common    carriers    by    vessels    on    the  10  W.   R.   559;    Hyde  v.   Trent  Nav. 

seas,  lakes,  or  navigable  rivers,  or  by  Co.,  5  T.  R.  389;    Birkett  v.  Willan, 

railroads.  2  B.  &  Old.  456;   Storr  v.  Crowley,  1 

Ohio.— Brown  (H.  W.)   t.  Mott,  22  McClel.  4  T.  129. 
Ohio  St.  149. 


252  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

their  g(>ocls  upon   tlie  wharf  or  pi(^r;   and   if  the  consignee  "wa'? 
present,  it  was  his  duty  at  once  to  take  charge  of  the  goods.     If 
he  was  not  present,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  give  him  notice 
of  the  arrival  of  the  goods.     If  he  was  absent,  dead,  or  could  not 
be  found,  the  carrier  discharged  his  duty  by  depositing  the  goods 
in  a  warehouse,  subject  to  the  order  of  the  consignee.""     The  com- 
mon law  rule  as  to  carriers  by  land  was  maintained  in  the  early 
days  of  transportation  by  rail  and  applied  to  railroads.^^     But  it 
was  soon  perceived  that  substantially  the  same  rules,  and  for  the 
same  reasons,  should  be  applied  to  railroad  carriers  as  were  ap- 
plied to  carriers  by  water.      The  railroad  carrier  is  obliged  to  stop 
at  the  depot,  as  the  water  carrier  is  at  the  wharf,  and  unless  the 
consignee  is  present  on  the  arrival  of  the  goods  to  take  them  from 
the  cars,  it  must,  as  is  the  well-knowm  and  uniform  custom,  place 
them  in  its  freight  house.     Universal  custom,  therefore,  soon  re- 
lieved carriers  by  rail  from  the  duty  of  personal  delivery  to  the 
consignee,  and  carriers  by  railways,  as  well  as  carriers  by  vessels 
and  boats,  were  exempted  from  the  duty  of  personal  delivery,  as 
maintained  in  respect  to  other  carriers  by  land.^^     But  this  ex- 
emption does  not  extend  to  express  companies,  although  availing 
themselves  of  carriage  by  rail.     Such  companies  were  established 
for  the  purpose  of  extending  to  the  public  the  advantages  of  per- 
sonal delivery  enjoyed  in  all  cases  of  land  carriage  prior  to  the 
introduction  of  transportation  by  rail.^^     According  to  the  com- 
mon law,  it  is  the  intendment  of  the  general  undertaking  of  an 
express  company  that  it  will  make  personal  delivery  of  the  goods 
consigned,   as  distinguished  from  a  warehouse   delivery.^*     The 

20.  Fenner  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  R.  Oo.  v.  Wood,  66  Ala.  167,  41  Am. 
44  N.  Y.   505,  4  Am.  Rep.   709.     See       Rep.  749.     See  §  29,   infra. 

§  29,  infra.  23.  Witbeck   v.   Holland,   45  N.  Y. 

21.  Schroeder  v.  Hudson  River  R.  13,  6  Am.  Rep.  23;  Baum  v.  Long 
Co.,  12  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  (5  Duer)  55;  Island  R.  Co.,  58  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  34, 
Eagle  V.  White,  6  Whart.  (Pa.)  505,  108  N.  Y.  Supp.  1113,  until  personal 
37  Am.  Dec.  434;  Graff  v.  Bloomer,  delivery  is  made  they  are  liable  as 
9  Pa.  St.   (9  Barr)   114.  carriers,   imless   a    reasonable   excuse 

22.  Witbeck  v.   Holland,   45   N.   Y.  for  non-delivery  exists. 

13,  6  Am.  Rep.  23;  Thomas  v.  Boston  24.  State    v.    Adams    Express    Co., 

&  P.  R.  Co.,  10  Mete.   (Mass.)   472,  43       171   Ind.   138,   85  N.  E.   337,  966,   19 
Am.  Dec.   444;    South,  etc.,  Alabama      L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.)   93. 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


253 


ordinary  undertaking  of  an  express  company  is  to  transport  the 
goods  to  the  place  of  destination,  and  there  deliver  them  to  the 
consignee  at  his  residence  or  place  of  business,  if  he  can  be  found 
by  reasonable  diligence,  at  the  place  where  they  are  addressed, 
or  to  some  person  authorized  to  receive  them,  and  it  is  liable  as  a 
common  carrier  and  insurer  thereof  until  it  has  carried  out  this 
undertaking.^^  Its  duty  is  not  performed,  nor  is  its  liability 
changed  from  that  of  carrier  to  warehouseman,  by  giving  notice 
to  the  consignee  that  a  package  addressed  to  him  has  arrived  and 
awaits  his  order.  In  this  respect  the  obligation  of  an  express 
company  differs  from  that  of  a  railroad  company  or  steamboat 
owner;  these  being  allowed  to  deposit  the  parcel  in  their  ware- 
house, and  notify  the  consignee  to  call  for  it.  A  consignee  of  a 
package  sent  by  express  is  not  bound  to  call  for  it,  but  the  express 
agent  must  make  reasonable  inquiry  to  find  him,  and  must  deliver 
the  package  to  him."^  Where  an  express  company,  after  diligent 
inquiry,  cannot  find  the  place  of  residence  of  the  consignee,  its 
liability  as  a  carrier  is  then  at  an  end.^^     It  is  the  duty  of  an 


25.  III.  —  American  Merchants' 
Union  Exp.  Co.  v.  Wolf,  79  111.  430; 
American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Haggard,  37 
111.  465,  87  Am.  Dec.  257;  American 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Baldwin,  26  111.  (16 
Peck)  504,  79  Am.  Dec.  389;  Baldwin 
V.  American  Exp.  Co.,  23  111.  (13 
Peck)    197,  74  Am.  Dec.  190. 

2^,  Y. — Witbeck  v.  Holland,  55 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  443,  38  How.  Pr.  (N. 
Y.)  273;  affd.  45  N.  Y.  13,  6  Am.  Rep. 
23.  It  seems  that  a  delivery  by  an 
express  company,  at  its  office,  to  the 
authorized  agent  of  the  consignee  is 
sufficient.  Sweet  v.  Barney,  33  N.  Y. 
335,  affg.  24  Barb.    (N.  Y.)    533. 

Pa. — American  Union  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Robinson,  72  Pa.  St.  (22  P.  F.  Smith) 
274. 

W.  Va. — ^Hutchinson  v.  United 
States  Exp.  Co.,  63  W.  Va.  128,  59 
fi.  E.  944,  14  L.  R.  A.    (N.  S.)    393. 

Time  of  delivery. — It  is  the  duty  of 


an  express  company,  as  a  common  car- 
rier, to  deliver  goods  or  packages  as 
soon  as  practicable  after  arrival  at 
the  place  of  consignment,  within  the 
usual  hours  of  transacting  general 
business  in  such  place.  Marshall  v. 
American  Exp.  Co.,  7  Wis.  1,  73  Am. 
Dec.  381. 

Upper  floor  delivery. — Where  the 
consignee's  place  of  business  is  on  the 
upper  floor  of  a  building,  delivery 
cannot  properly  be  made  to  him  by 
the  carrier  by  leaving  the  goods  on 
the  ground  floor  and  notifying  the  of- 
fice boy  of  the  consignee,  who  was 
not  authorized  to  receive  packages,  of 
the  fact.  Haslam  v.  Adams  Express 
Co.,  19  N.  Y.  Super  Ct.  (5  Bosw.) 
235. 

26.  Witbeck  v.   Holland,  supra. 

27.  American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hockett, 
30  Ind.  250,  95  Am.  Dec.  691. 


254  THE  LAW  OF  CAERIERS. 

express  company  to  make  personal  delivery  of  packages,  except 
where  the  place  is  so  small  as  not  to  justify  the  employment  of 
messengers,  or  the  consignee  does  not  reside  within  a  reasonable 
distance  of  the  office,  and  then  prompt  notice  must  be  sent.^^  While 
courts  have  treated  carriers  by  express  as  analogous  to  carriers  by 
wagon,  and  held  that,  except  at  small  stations,  it  is  the  implica- 
tion of  their  undertaking  that  they  will  make  personal  delivery, 
express  companies  have  the  common  law  right  to  fix  their  tolls 
with  reasonable  reference  to  the  service  rendered,  and  may  fix 
reasonable  delivery  limits  in  towns  and  cities.^'  The  rule  as  to 
place  and  mode  of  delivery  of  express  packages  may  be  modified 
by  special  agreement  or  usage  under  which  delivery  may  be  made 
at  the  express  office  or  in  the  offices  of  other  business  places,  and 
the  duty  of  the  carrier  is  then  measured  by  the  usage  or  the  terms 
of  the  special  agreement.^**  An  express  carrier's  duty  to  deliver 
to  the  consignee  in  person,  and  the  consignee's  duty  to  receive  are 
reciprocal.  The  consignee  cannot,  by  design,  or  to  promote  his 
convenience,  deprive  the  carrier  of  the  right  to  terminate  by  de- 
livery the  liability  as  insurer  within  a  reasonable  time.  Where 
the  consignee  has  notice  of  the  arrival,  and  the  carrier  is  ready  to 
deliver,  but  is  prevented  by  the  consignee's  absence,  the  liability 
as  carrier  ends,  and  thenceforward  the  liability  is  for  reasonable 
care.^^  An  express  company's  liability  as  a  carrier  continues  until 
delivery  of  the  shipment  to  the  consignee,  personally  or  at  his 

28.  American  Standard  Jewelry  Co.  van  v.  Thompson,  99  Mass.  259; 
V.  Witherington,  81  Ark.  134,  98  S.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Holland,  109 
W.  695.  Ala.  362,  19  So.  66. 

29.  State  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  Depositing  goods  on  the  platform 
171  Ind.  138,  85  N.  E.  337,  966,  19  L.  of  the  railroad  depot  at  the  place  of 
E,.  A.  (N.  S.)  93;  Bullard  v.  Ameri-  destination,  without  delivering  them 
can  Exp.  Co.,  107  Mich.  695,  65  N.  W.  to  the  consignee,  or  placing  them  in 
551,  61  Am.  St.  Rep.  358,  33  L.  R.  A.  the  custody  of  any  person,  is  not  a 
66,  and  they  are  not  liable  for  refus-  "^sufficient  delivery,  although  the  ex- 
ing  to  call  for  or  deliver  packages  press  company  had  no  agent  at  the 
outside  of  such  established  limits  to  place  of  destination.  Southern  Exp, 
persons  knowing  of  such  limits.  Co.  v.  Armstead,  50  Ala.  350. 

30. — ^Hutchinson    v.    United    States  31.  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Darnell,  31 

Express  Co.,  63  W.  Va.  128,  59  S.  E.      Ind.  20,  99  Am.  Dec.  582. 
949,  14  L.  R.  A.    (N.  S.)    393;   SuUi- 


TERMINATION  OF   LIABILITY. 


255 


residence  or  place  of  business.^^  Liability  as  a  carrier  for  a  pack- 
age carried  to  a  point  at  which  the  established  practice  is  to  make 
delivery  at  the  express  office  on  application  for  the  goods  pursuant 
to  notice  by  mail  does  not  terminate  until  a  reasonable  time  al- 
lowed for  removal  after  notice  has  elapsed.^ 

§  29.  Same  subject. — Carriers  by  rail. 

The  common  law  rule  that  in  the  absence  of  a  special  contract 
or  usage  to  the  contrary,  common  carriers  by  land  are  bound  to 
deliver  or  tender  goods  to  the  consignee  at  his  residence  or  place 
of  business,  has  been  applied  only  in  exceptional  cases  to  railroads, 
which  are,  as  general  rule,  exempt  from  the  duty  of  personal  de- 
livery, and  are  bound  only  to  carry  the  goods  to  the  depot  or 
station  to  which  they  are  destined,  and  there  hold  or  place  them  in 
a  warehouse  ready  for  delivery  on  demand  of  the  consignee  or 
owner  whenever  called  for,  after  notifying  him  of  their  readiness 
to  deliver.^*  If  a  railway  company,  receiving  goods  for  trans- 
portation over  its  road,  exacts  the  payment  of  cartage  in  advance 


32.  State  v.  Parshley,  108  Me.  410, 
81  Atl.  484. 

33.  Hutchinson  v.  United  States 
Express  Co.,  63  W.  Va.  128,  59  S.  E. 
949. 

Leaving  an  express  package  in  the 
freight  room  of  a  railway  station  at 
which  the  express  office  is  maintained 
instead  of  in  the  room  in  which  such 
packages  are  usually  placed,  neither 
continues  "the  liability  of  the  express 
company  as  carrier  nor  amounts  to 
negligence  as  warehouseman.     Id. 

34.  Ala. — South,  etc.,  Alabama  R. 
Co.  V.  Wood,  66  Ala.  167,  41  Am. 
Rep.  749,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  419. 

III. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Friend, 
64  in.  303. 

Ind. — Bansemer,  Toledo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    25   Ind.    434,    87    Am.    Dec.    367. 

Iowa. — Francis  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  25  Iowa  60,  95  Am.  Dec.  769. 

Mich. — Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Ward,  2  Mich.  538. 


Miss. — New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Tyson,  46  Miss.  729,  1  Am.  Ry.  Rep. 
474. 

Mo. — Buddy  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co..,  20  Mo.  App.  206. 

Neb. — State  v.  Republican  Valley 
R.  Co.,  17  Neb.  647,  52  Am.  Rep.  424, 
22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  500. 

N.  r.— Witbeck  v.  Holland,  45  N. 
Y.  13,  6  Am.  Rep.  23 ;  Fenner  v.  Buf- 
falo, etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  N.  Y.  505,  4  Am. 
Rep.  709;  Baum  v.  Long  Island  R. 
Co.,  58  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  34,  108  N.  Y. 
Supp.  1113. 

N.  C— Chalk  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  85  N.  C.  423,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.   108. 

U.  8. — Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  In- 
terstate Commerce  Commission,  18S 
Fed.   229. 

Eng. — Evershed  v.  London,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  2  Q.  B.  Div.  254,  26  W.  R.  102, 
46  L.  J.   Q.  B.  Div.   289. 

Where  a  part  of  goods  shipped  were 


256 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS, 


of  shipping,  from  its  freight  house  to  the  consignee's  place  of 
business,  in  addition  to  the  usual  freight  for  transportation,  this 
will  constitute  an  express  contract  to  deliver  at  the  consignee's 
place  of  business.^^  The  rule  of  railroad's  liability,  relaxed  from 
the  common  law,  and  substituting  a  delivery  at  a  safe  depot  for 
personal  delivery,  is  applicable  to  a  corporation  of  freighters  own- 
ing a  line  of  freight  cars  and  known  as  a  transportation  company.^® 
In  all  cases  where  a  special  contract  or  usage  is  shown  to  exist 
which  relieves  the  carrier  from  personal  delivery,  unless  the  pro- 
visions of  the  contract  are  unreasonable,  the  carrier  is  not  liable 
if  delivery  be  made  in  accordance  with  such  special  contract  or 


usage. 

destroyed,  and  the  remainder  arrived 
uninjured,  the  carrier,  in  order  to 
avoid  liability  for  the  entire  ajnount 
of  the  goods  shipped,  is  not  bound  to 
make,  nor  offer  to  make,  a  personal 
delivery  of  the  property  to  the  con- 
signee. Michigan  S.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bivens,  13  Ind.  263. 

Delivery  of  goods  by  merely  plac- 
ing them  upon  the  banks  of  a  river, 
in  the  absence  of  the  consignee,  and 
not  under  the  care  of  the  agents  of 
the  carrier,  it  having  agents  at  the 
point  for  the  purpose  of  receiving 
and  delivering  goods,  is  negligence  in 
a  common  carrier,  in  the  absence  of 
any  special  contract.  Dresbach  v. 
California  Pac.  R.  Co.,  57  Cal.  462. 

35.  III. — Cahn  v.  Michigan  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  71  111.  96. 


Md. — Baltimore, 

Green,  25  Md.  72. 

Mo. — ^Loomis    v. 


etc.,    R.     Co.    V. 

Wabasih,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  17  Mo.  App.  340.  See  also  New 
York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Standard 
Oil  Co.,  87  N.  Y.  486,  6  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  353,  aff'g  20  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
39,  where  the  contract  was  held  to 
require  the  railroad  company  to  un- 
load oil  from  the  barges  at  the  oil 
company's  warehouse. 


So  where  it  is  the  usual  custom  of 
a  carrier,  or  the  usual  and  known 
course  of  business  of  the  carrier  to 
deliver  goods,  or  particular  classes  of 
goods,  at  the  residence  or  place  of 
business  of  the  consignee,  the  carrier 
is  bound  to  make  actual  delivery  at 
such  place.    Taff  Vale  R.  Co.  v.  Giles, 

2  El.  &  Bl.  823,  88  E.  C.  L.  822; 
Golden  v.  Manning,  2  W.  Bl.  916; 
Mitchell  V.  Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
L.  R.  10  Q.  B.  256,  44  L.  J.  Q.  B.  107; 
Wise  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  1  H. 
&  N.  63,  25  L.  J.  Exch.  258;  Bourne 
V.  Gatliff,  11  CI.  &  F.  45,  33  E.  C.  L. 
364. 

36.  Merchants'  Dispatch  Transp. 
Co.  V.  Hallock,  64  111.  284. 

A  stipulation  that  goods  should  be 
forwarded  to  "  Louisville  depot  only," 
contained  in  a  bill  of  lading,  is  suffi- 
cient to  relieve  the  common  carrier 
from  making  a  personal  delivery  to 
the  consignee  at  his  residence  or 
place  of  business.  Merchants'  Dis- 
patch Transp.  Co.,  Ill  Ind.  5,  11  N. 
W.  954. 

37.  Matter  of  Webb,  8  Taunt.  443, 
4  E.   C.  L.  159;   Richardson  v.  Goes, 

3  B.  &  P.  119;  Strong  v.  Natally,  1 
B.  4  P.  N.  R.  16. 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY.  257 

§  30.  Delivery  by  carriers  by  water. 

Carriers  bj  water  are  not  held  to  a  personal  delivery  of  the 
goods  to  the  consignee  or  to  a  delivery  at  any  other  place  than  at 
the  veharf  or  usual  place  of  unloading  of  the  vessel,  and  notice  to 
the  consignee  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods,  and  of  a  readiness  to  de- 
liver, takes  the  place  of  a  personal  delivery,  so  far  as  to  release 
the  carrier  from  the  extraordinary  and  stringent  liabilities  inci- 
dent to  that  class  of  bailees.  By  the  general  usages  of  commercial 
or  maritime  law,  as  established  by  judicial  decisions,  it  is  well 
settled  that  the  carrier  by  water  shall  carry  from  port  to  port  or 
from  wharf  to  wharf,  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  de- 
liver, and  of  the  consignee  to  receive  the  goods,  out  of  the  ship 
or  on  the  wharf.^  The  landing  of  goods  upon  a  wharf  is  not  a 
delivery.  To  constitute  a  valid  delivery  on  the  wharf,  the  carrier 
is  bound  to  give  due  and  reasonable  notice  to  the  consignee  of  such 
landing,  so  as  to  afford  him  a  fair  opportunity  of  providing  suit- 
able means  to  remove  the  goods  or  put  them  under  proper  care  and 
custody,  and  it  remains  liable  as  an  insurer  of  the  safety  of  the 
goods  until  after  the  lapse  of  a  reasonable  time  from  the  giving 
of  such  notice,  and  is  bound  to  store  the  goods  in  a  safe  and  suit- 

38.  /nd.— Bansemer  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  Pa.— Ck>pe    v.    Cordova,    1    Eawie 

R.  Co.,  25  Ind.  434,  87  Am.  Dec.  367.  (Pa.)     203;      Scott    v.    Province,    1 

III. — Union      Steamboat      Co.      v.  Pittsb.  R.  (Pa.)   19. 

Knapp,  73  111.  506.  F^.— Farmers',       etc.,       Bank       v. 

I^a- — Kohn  v.  Packard,  3  La.  224,  Champlain   Transp.    Ck>.,    16   Vt.    53, 

23  Am.  Dec.  453.  42  Am.  Dec.  491,  23  Vt.  188,  56  Am. 

Mass. — 'Ohickering    v.    Fowler,    21  Dec.  68. 

Mass.   (4  Pick.)   371.  V.  fif.— The  Grafton,  Olcott  (U.  S.) 

A^.  y. — Kilroy  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  43,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,656;  Richard- 
Canal  Co.,  121  N.  Y.  22,  24  N.  E.  122;  son  V.  Goddard,  23  How.  (U.  S.) 
McAndrewv.  Whitlock,  52N.  Y.  40„  11  ..8;  The  Eddy,  5  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
Am.   Rep.   657;    Zinn   v.  New   Jersey  481. 

Steamboat  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  442,  10  Am.  Eng. — Hyde  v.   Trent.  Nav.   Co.,   5 

Rep.  402,  3  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  340;   Red-  T.  R.  68. 

mond  V.  Liverpool,  etc.,  S.  S.  Co.,  56  The  responsibility  of  a  carrier  upon 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  320;  Van  Santvoord  v.  the  Ohio  River  does  not  cease  upon 

St.  John,  6  Hill   (N.  Y.)    157;  Davis  the    delivering   of   the   goods    on    the 

V.   Chautauqua  Lake,  etc.,  Assembly,  wharf,   and  notice  given  to  the  oon- 

41  Hun  (N.  Y.)  638,  2  N.  Y.  St'.  Rep.  signee,  but  it  is  its  duty  to  attend 

•365.  to  the  actual  delivery.     Hemphill  v. 


17 


Ohenie,  6  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.  1843)   63. 


258 


iHE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


able  warehouse  to  await  the  consignee  or  his  agent.'*  If  the  car- 
rier fail  to  give  such  notice,  or  if  a  reasonable  and  diligent  effort 
is  not  made  to  find  and  notify  the  consignee,  the  carrier  is  liable 
for  the  consequences  of  such  neglect  and  for  any  depreciation  in 
the  value  of  the  goods  from  their  value  at  the  time  and  place  they 
ought  to  have  been  delivered  and  their  value  at  the  time  of  their 
actual  delivery.*" 


39.  Ostrander  v.  Brown,  15  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  39,  8  Am.  Dec.  211;  Row- 
land V.  Miln,  2  Hilt.  (N.  Y.)  150; 
Pickering  v.  Weld,  159  Mass.  532; 
Blin.  V.  Mayo,  10  Vt.  56,  33  Am.  Dec. 
175;  Sleade  v.  Payne,  14  La.  Ann. 
457;  Hemphill  v.  Chenie,  6  W.  &  S. 
(Pa.)  62;  Warner  v.  The  Illinois, 
17  Phila.  (Pa.)  549;  Galloway  v. 
Hughes,  1  Bayley  L.  (S.  C.)  553; 
Morgan  v.  Dibble,  29  Tex.  107,  94 
Am.  Dec.  264;  Shenk  v.  Philadelphia 
Steam,  etc.,  Co.,  60  Pa.  St.  109,  100 
Am.  Dec.  541. 

The  rule  of  the  text  may  be  varied 
by  contract,  or  affected  by  well  es- 
tablished, reasonable,  and  generally 
known  local  custom  and  usage  of 
such  uniformity,  certainty,  and  no- 
toriety as  to  warrant  the  jury  in 
finding  that  it  was  known  to  the 
party  sought  to  be  affected.  Huston 
V.  Peters,  1  Mete.  (Ky.)  558;  Gash- 
weiler  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Mo. 
112,  53  Am.  Rep.  558,  25  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  403. 

A  delivery  of  goods  consigned  to 
certain  warehousemen,  at  the  pier 
instead  of  the  warehouse  to  which 
they  were  consigned,  is  not  delivery 
according  to  the  carrier's  contract. 
Steamboat  Sultan  v.  Chapman,  5  Wis. 
454. 

A  delivery  of  goods  consigned  to 
a  party  at  a  particular  landing,  where 
there  had  been  a  warehousekeeper,  at 
the  usual  place  on  the  river  bank, 
■without    any    protection    or    guard, 


when  the  landing  had  been  broken  up 
by  an  inundation,  and  the  washing 
away  of  the  buildings,  and  the  re- 
moval of  the  persons  in  charge,  is  not 
a  good  delivery.  Stone  v.  Rice,  58 
Ala.  95.  Where  it  is  in  accordance 
with  the  local  custom  recognized  by 
merchants  and  others,  a  carrier  may 
notify  a  consignee  of  the  arrival  of 
the  goods  by  postal  card  deposited  in 
the  mails.  Roth  Clothing  Co.  v. 
Maine  Steamship  Co.,  44  Misc.  Rep. 
(N.  Y.)  237,  88  N.  Y.  Supp.  987; 
Friedman  v.  Metropolitan  S.  S.  Co., 
45  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  383,  90  N.  Y. 
Supp.  401;  Normile  v.  Northern  Pac. 
Ry.  Co.,  36  Wash.  21,  77  Pac.  1087, 
67  L.  R.  A,  271. 

40.  Sherman  v.  Hudson  River  R. 
Co.,  64  N.  Y,  254;  Zinn  v.  New  Jer- 
sey Steamboat  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  442,  3 
Am.  Ry.  Rep.  340,  10  Am.  Rep.  403. 

The  carrier  is  not  responsible  for 
injury  to  the  goods  due  to  the  fault 
of  the  consignee.  Goodwin  v.  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  154,  10 
Am.  Rep.  457;  The  Mill  Boy,  4  Mc- 
Crary   (U.  S.)    383. 

Personal  notice  may  be  excused 
where  there  are  certain  provisions  in 
the  bill  of  lading.  Constable  v.  Na- 
tional Steamship  Co.,  154  U.  S.  51, 14 
Supp.  Ct.  1062,  38  L.  Ed.  903. 

What  is  a  sufficient  delivery,  by 
carrier  to  consignee,  of  unusually 
bulky  articles,  such  as  a  raft  of  logs. 
Hungerford  v.  Winnebago  Tug  Boat, 
etc.,  Co.,  33  Wis.  303. 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY.  259 

§  31.  Delivery  where  consignee  refuses  to  receive. 

When  goods  are  safely  conveyed  to  the  place  of  destination,  and 
the  consignee  does  not  accept  or  refuses  to  receive  the  goods,  the 
carrier  may  discharge  itself  from  further  responsibility,  except  as 
warehouseman,  by  storing  the  goods  in  its  warehouse,  or  in  that  of 
some  responsible  third  party,  and  the  goods  are  then  subject  to  its 
lien  for  storage  as  well  as  transportation  charges.'*^  After  notice 
sent  to  the  consignor  or  owner  and  the  goods  being  held  in  storage 
for  a  reasonable  length  of  time,  if  the  consignee  still  refuses  to 
receive  the  goods,  the  lien  may  be  enforced  as  provided  by  law, 
and  the  carrier  will  be  discharged  from  further  liability  upon  ac- 
counting for  the  proceeds.*^  (  If  the  goods  are  of  a  perishable 
nature  and  it  becomes  a  matter  of  necessity  to  sell  to  prevent  a 
total  loss,  the  carrier  may  sell  them,  after  giving  reasonable  notice, 
of  the  time  and  place  of  sale,  and  retain  its  freight  and  charges 
from  the  proceeds.  The  sale  in  such  case  is  not  in  virtue  of  its 
lien,  but  in  the  interest  of  the  owner.^  Iln  order  to  relieve  itself 
from  liability,  the  carrier  must  deliver  the  goods  in  good  condi- 
tion, and  is  not  justified  in  abandoning  them  or  negligently  ex- 

41.  McAndrew  v.  Whitlock,  52  N.  Great   Western    R.   Co.,    2    H.   &   N. 

Y.  40,  11  Am.  Rep.  657;  Redmond  v.  491,  3  Jur  N.  S.  796;  Great  Western 

Liverpool,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  N.  Y.  578,  R.  Co.  v.  Crouch,  3  H.  &  N.   183,  4 

7  Am.  Rep.  390;  Cook  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  Jur.   N.   S.   457;    Great  Northern   R. 

58   Barb.    (N.  Y.)    312;    Rowland   v.  Co.  v.  Swaffield,  L.  R.  9  Exch.  132,  43 

Miln,  2  Hilt.    (N.  Y.)   150;  Williams  L.  J.  Exch.  89. 

V.  Holland,  22  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  137;  42.  Cassily  v.  Young,  4  B.  Mon. 
Fisk  V.  Newton,  1  Den.  (N.  Y.)  47,  (Ky.)  265;  39  Am.  Dec.  505;  Ran- 
43  Am.  Dec.  649;  American  Sugar,  kin  v.  Memphis,  etc..  Packet  Co.,  9 
etc.,  Co.  v.  McGhee,  96  Ga.  27;  II-  Hdsk.  (Tenn.)  569,  24  Am.  Rep.  339. 
linois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb,  64  111.  Proof  of  demand  and  tender  of 
128;  Gulliver  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  charges  are  not  necessary  to  sustain 
38  111.  502;  Bartholomew  V.  St.  Louis,  an  action  by  a  shipper  against  an 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  111.  227,  5  Am.  Rep.  express  company  for  failure  to  re- 
45;  Cassilay  v.  Young,  4  B.  Mon.  turn  goods  as  directed,  upon  refusal 
(Ky.)  265  39  Am.  Dec.  505;  Young  of  the  consignee  to  accept  them. 
V.  Smith,  3  Dana  (Ky.)  91,  28  Am.  Hirsch  v.  Piatt,  89  N.  Y.  Supp.  362. 
Dec.  57;  Wood  v.  Crocker,  18  Wis.  43.  Rankin  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  Pack- 
345,  80  Am.  Dec.  773;  Steamboat  Key-  et  Co.,  9  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  568,  24  Am. 
Rtone  v.  Moies,  28  Mo.  243,  75  Am.  Rep.  339;  Arthur  v.  The  Schooner 
Dec.  123;  I^sinsky  v.  Groat  Western  Cassius,  2  Story  (U,  S.)  97.  See  En- 
Dispatch,  13  Mo.  App.  575;  Crouch  v.  forcement  of  lien,  §  12,  chap.  16. 


2G0 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


posing  them  to  injury,  even  if  the  consignee  neglects  or  refuses 
to  accept  or  receive  them  after  notice  of  their  arrival."  A  failure 
by  the  carrier  to  deliver  goods  within  reasonable  time  constitutes 
a  conversion  and  entitles  the  consignee  to  recover  their  full  value, 
when  the  delay  destroys  the  value  of  the  goods  entirely  or  renders 
them  valueless  to  the  consignee/"  But  otherwise  such  delay  in 
delivery  is  merely  a  breach  of  contract,  and  not  conversion,  and 
the  consignee  cannot  refuse  to  accept  the  goods  and  recover  their 
full  value/®  The  consignee  is  not  warranted  in  refusing  to  re- 
ceive goods  on  account  of  damage  or  depreciation  in  value  result- 
ing from  delay  in  delivery,  but,  upon  notice  of  their  arrival, 
should  receive  the  goods  and  dispose  of  them  to  the  best  advantage, 
and  the  measure  of  damages  he  is  entitled  to  recover  will  be  the 
difference  between  the  amount  he  would  have  realized  if  prompt 
delivery  had  been  made  and  the  amount  actually  realized.  He  is 
entitled  to  recover  only  to  the  extent  of  the  actual  injury.^^     The 


44.  Scheu  v.  Benedict,  116  N.  Y. 
510,  15  Am.  St.  Rep.  426.  Where  the 
carrier  was  in  no  way  at  fault,  and 
notice  was  given  to  the  consignor  of 
the  consignee's  refusal  to  receive  the 
goods  because  they  were  not  such  as 
he  ordered,  the  carrier  is  not  liable 
to  the  consignor.  Adams  Express  Oo. 
V.  MoConnell,  27  Kan.  238,  9  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  240. 

As  to  goods  offered  for  delivery  in 
a  damaged  and  perishing  condition 
from  causes  for  which  the  carrier  was 
not  responsible,  and  which  are  refused 
by  the  consignee,  after  reasonable  no- 
tice and  opportunity  to  remove  given 
to  the  consignee,  the  carrier  becomes 
a  compulsory  bailee  bound  only  to  the 
reasonable  care  of  an  involuntary 
custodian.  The  Bobolink,  6  Sawy. 
(U.  S.)    146. 

As  to  the  cars  of  a  connecting  line 
in  which  goods  are  tendered  for  de- 
livery the  carrier,  upon  refusal  of  the 
consignee  to  receive,  becomes  liable 
only  as  warehouseman,  no  negligence 


being  shown.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Fed.  317,  23 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  718. 

45.  Mitchell  v.  Weir,  19  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)    183,  45  N.  Y.  Supp.  10S5. 

46.  Ostrander  v.  Brown,  15  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  39,  8  Am.  Dec.  211;  Shaw  v. 
South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  5  Rich.  L.  (S. 
C.)  462,  57  Am.  Dec.  768;  Galveston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watson,  1  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  Cas.,  §  813;  Baumbach  v.  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  650. 

47.  Mills  V.  National  Steamship 
Co.,  5  N.  Y.  Supp.  258;  Adams  Ex. 
press  Co.  v.  McDonough,  6  Ohio  Cir. 
Ct.  Rep.  539;  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Tyson,  46  Miss.  729,  1  Am.  Ry. 
Rep.  474;  Howe  v.  Oswego,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  56  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  121;  Nettles  v. 
South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  7  Rich.  L.  (S. 
C.)    190,  62  Am.  Dec.  409. 

The  receipt  of  goods  damaged, 
but  yet  of  some  value,  will  not  be  re- 
garded as  a  wr.iver  of  claim  for  dam- 
ages, and  failure  to  receive  such  goods 
within  a  reasonable  time  will  entitle 


TERMINATION   OF   LIABILITY.  261 

consignee  is  not  bound  to  accept  goods  when  they  are  so  damaged 
as  to  amount  to  practically  a  total  loss."^  If  they  are  so  damaged 
as  to  be  unsafe  for  removal  from  the  station,  and  the  carrier  fail 
to  repair,  if  they  are  capable  of  repair,  acceptance  cannot  be  re- 
quired of  the  consignee/*  And  in  either  case,  full  value  of  the 
goods  may  bo  recovered.^"  Where  goods  are  tendered  for  delivery 
at  an  unreasonable  time  or  place,  or  under  unreasonable  condi- 
tions, the  consignee  may  refuse  to  accept  under  such  circumstances, 
and  his  right  to  insist  upon  a  subsequent  delivery  and  the  carrier's 
duty  to  care  for  the  goods  meanwhile  will  not  be  affected  by  his 
refusal."  So,  he  may  demand  the  delivery  of  goods,  after  once 
refusing  to  receive  them  when  duly  tendered,  where  his  refusal 
was  due  to  mistake,  and  no  other  rights  have  intervened.^^ 

§  32.  Delivery  of  goods  sent  C.  O.  D. 

Where  goods  are  sent  with  instructions  not  to  deliver  them  until 
they  are  paid  for,  the  carrier,  who  accepts  the  goods  with  such  in- 
structions, undertakes  not  to  deliver  them  unless  the  condition  of 
payment  is  complied  with.  In  addition  to  its  obligations  as  a 
carrier,  it  becomes  the  agent  of  the  consignor  to  collect  and  receive 
the  price  of  the  goods  and  return  the  money  to  the  consignor. 

the  carrier  to  offset  a  claim  for  stor-  shipment.      Michigan    Southern,    etc., 

age  against  the  consignee's   claim   for  R.   Go.   v.   Bivens,   13   Ind.   263. 

damage.    Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boston,  48.  Thomas,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.   Wa- 

4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Caa.,  §  66;   Galres-  bash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Wis.  642,  51  Am. 

ton,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Van    Winkle,  Rep.   725;   Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lo- 

3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Cas.,  §  442.  gan,   3   Tex.  Giv.   App.   Gas.,   §    185; 

A  shortage  of  goods  does  not  jus-  Gulf,   etc.,   R.  Co.   v.   Maetz,   2   Tex. 

tify  a  refusal  to  accept,  and  if  they  Civ.  App.  Gas.,  §  630,  18  Am.  &  Eng. 

are     sold     for     freight     and     storage  R.   Cas.   613. 

charges,  the  consignee  has  no  right  of  49.  Breed  v.  Mitchell,  48   Ga.  533. 

action.     Id.  50.  See  notes  48  and  49. 

The  consignee  is  not  bound  to  ac-  51.  Eagle  v.  White,  6  Whart.  (Pa.) 
cspt  where  only  a  third  of  the  goods  505,  37  Am.  Dec.  434;  Hill  v.  Humph- 
are  tendered  and  there  is  no  evidence  reys,  5  W.  &  S.  (Pa.)  123,  39  Am. 
that  they  are  the  original  goods  Dec.  117;  Texa.s,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mar- 
shipped.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  tin,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Cas,  §  341. 
Warren,  16  Til.  502,  63  Am.  Deo.  317.  52.  Bacharach    v.    Chester    Freight 

W'  ere  only  a  part  of  the  goods  are  Line,  133  Pa.  St.  414,  42  Am.  &  Eng. 

d.^magcd,  the  consi,':!iee  cannot  refuse  R.    Cas.    362;     EdAvards    v.    Cheraw, 

to  receive  the  pnrtif>n  uninjured,  and  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  S.  C.  117,  42   Am.  & 

hold  the  carrier  liable  for  the  entire  Eng.  R.  Cas.  453. 


2G2 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


This  obligation  or  duty  is  not  one  arising  or  implied  from  the 
nature  of  its  business,  but  is  based  upon  contract,  express  or  im- 
plied.^^  If  the  carrier  accepts  goods  with  such  instructions,  or  if 
goods  are  so  clearly  marked  as  to  show  the  intention  of  the  con- 
signor to  make  payment  a  condition  of  delivery,  a  contract  is  im- 
plied, and  delivery  under  such  circumstances  without  requiring 
payment,  though  to  the  consignee  or  to  the  right  person,  is  a  con- 
version, and  the  carrier  is  liable  therefor  to  the  consignor.^"     The 


53.  Danciger  v.  Wells,  Fargo  Co., 
154  Fed.  379  (U.  S.  C.  C,  Mo.),  and 
the  carrier  may  refuse  to  make  sucli 

contract  in  any  particular  case,  not- 
witlistanaing  any  custom  or  usage  it 
may  liave  established  or  followed, 
which  cannot  enlarge  its  legal  duty 
as  a  carrier;  American  Express  Co. 
V.  Lesem,  39  111.  312;  Cox  v  Colum- 
bus, etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Ala.  392,  8  So. 
824,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  112 ;  Am- 
erican IMerchants',  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wolfe, 
97    111.    430. 

Undertaking  to  collect  chnrges.— 
When  a  bill  of  lading,  by  fair  con- 
struction, requires  the  carri  r  to  col- 
lect charges  upon  the  goods  on  de- 
livery, if  the  carrier  delivers  the 
goods  without  collecting  tlie  sum  due, 
he  becomes  liable  therefor.  Meyer 
V.  Lemcke,  31  Ind.  20S. 

By  simply  marking  package  C.  0. 
D.,  a  consignor  cannot  charge  a  com- 
mon carrier  with  any  duty  of  collect- 
ing from  the  consignee  the  price  or 
other  charge  against  goods  trans- 
mitted by  the  carrier.  There  nuist 
be  some  undertaking  by  the  carrier 
to  collect;  either  directly  proved,  or 
inferable  from  a  usage.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Merrill,  4S  111.  425. 

Agent  acting  without  autl-onty.— 
To  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
delivery,  without  payment  of  the 
price,   of  gnods   alleged   to  have  been 


deliverable,  by  the  bills  of  lading  to 
the  order  of  the  plaintiff,  who  in- 
dorsed and  delivered  the  bills  to  the 
carrier,  with  the  agreement  that  upon 
payment  of  the  price  they  were  to  be 
delivered  to  a  third  person,  it  is  a 
good  defense  that  the  agreement  was 
made  with  the  carrier's  agent,  and 
that  he  acted  beyond  his  authority, 
and  as  plaintiff's  agent  in  delivering 
the  goods,  and  not  as  the  carrier's 
agent.  Cox  v,  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
91  Ala.  392,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
112,  8  So.  824. 

54.  Tooker  v.  Gormer,  2  Hilt.  (N. 
Y.)  71;  Feiber  v.  Manhattan  Diat. 
Tel.  Co.,  3  N.  Y.  Supp.  116,  4  N.  Y. 
Supp.  555;  Murray  v.  Warner,  55 
N.  H.  546,  20  Am.  Rep.  227;  Hutob- 
ings  V.  Ladd,  16  Mich.  493;  Jellett  v. 
St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Minn.  265, 
16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  246;  Ameri- 
can Express  Co.  v,  Lesem,  39  111.  312; 
American,  etc..  Express  Co.  v.  Schier, 
55  HI.  140;  Cox  V.  Columbus,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  91  Ala.  392,  8  So.  824,  49  Am.  & 
E!)g.  R.  Cas.  112;  Lane  v  Chadwick, 
146  Mass.  68,  a  consignee  cannot 
maintain  replevin  against  the  carrier 
before  payment  and  delivery.  See  also 
Old  Colony  R.  Co.  v.  Wilder,  137 
Mass.  536,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  41. 

Where  a  carrier  by  whom  goods 
sold  are  shipped  to  be  delivered  to 
the  vendee  upon   the  payment  of  the 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


263 


letters  "  C.  O.  D.,"  followed  by  an  amount  in  dollars,  marked 
upon  the  goods  consigned  for  shipment,  are  well  understood  bj 
the  public  to  mean  that  the  carrier  accepting  the  goods  for  trans- 
portation shall  collect  the  amount  stated  as  a  condition  precedent 
to  delivery  j""*  but  their  meaning  may  not  be  considered  as  judi- 
cially settled;  or  so  well  understood  that  judicial  notice  can  be 
taken  of  the  purpose  for  which  they  are  used  in  all  cases,  or  of 
the  contract  to  be  implied  from  them,  although  it  is  competent  to 
explain  them,  and  thus  remove  all  ambiguity,  by  parol  evidence.^® 
In  some  jurisdictions,  however,  it  has  been  held  that  these  letters 
have  acquired  a  fixed  and  determinate  meaning,  which  courts  and 
juries  will  recognize  from  their  general  information,  and  that 
they  import  the  carrier's  liability  to  return  to  the  consignor  either 
the  goods  or  the  charges."     Sending  a  bill  of  goods  for  collection, 


purchase  money  negligently  delivers 
the  goods  before  such  payment, 
neither  the  carrier  nor  the  vendor 
can  recover  the  goods  from  a  bona 
fide  purchaser  from  the  vendee.  Nor- 
folk Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Barnes,  104 
N.  C.  25,  10  S.  E.  83,  40  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  121,  5  L.  R.  A.  611. 

Where  there  is  a  verbal  agreement 
as  to  delivery  in  addition  to  the  ship- 
per's receipt  the  contract  of  bailment 
must  be  ascertained  by  the  jury  from 
both  the  receipt  and  the  verbal  agree- 
ment. Union  R.  etc.,  Co.  v.  Riegel,  73 
Pa.  St.  72. 

Where  goods  are  sent  over  several 
connecting  lines,  the  obligation  as  to 
the  collection  of  the  price,  imposed 
by  the  acceptance  of  goods  marked  C. 
0.  D.,  rests  on  the  last  carrier,  and 
the  other  carrier  cannot  be  made  re- 
sponsible for  its  default.  Rennie  v. 
Northern  R.  Co.,  27  U.  C.  C.  P.  153. 

55.  Collender  v.  Dinsmore,  55  N. 
Y.  205,  14  Am.  Rep.  224.  The  letters 
C.  0.  D.  placed  upon  a  package 
shipped  by  express,  means  that  the 
value  or  price  of  the  package  will 
be    collected    on    delivery    and    trans- 


mitted to  the  consignor.  Those  let- 
ters have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
transportation  charges.  American, 
etc.,  Exp.  Co.  V.  Schier,  55  111.  140; 
American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Lesem,  39  111. 
312. 

56.  Collender  v.  Dinsmore,  55  N.  Y. 
205,  14  Am.  Rep.  224.  The  court  will 
not  take  judicial  notice  of  the  mean- 
ing of  '"C.  O.  D."  Its  meaning  is  a 
question  for  the  jury.  McNichol  v. 
Pacific  Express  Co.,  12  Mo.  App.  401. 
Cee  also,  American  Merchants,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Wolfe,  79  111.  430;  American 
Express  Co.  v.  Lesem,  39  111.  312. 

57.  United  States  Express  Co,  v. 
Refer,  59  Ind.  263,  the  rule  applied 
where  the  goods  had  been  destroyed 
by  the  burning  of  the  depot;  State  v. 
Intoxicating  Liquors,  73  Me.  278, 
courts  and  juries,  from  their  general 
information,  may  take  the  initials, 
"C.  0.  D.,"  when  affixed  to  packages 
sent  by  common  carriers  from  seller 
to  buyer,  to  mean  that  delivery  is  to 
be  made  upon  payment  of  the  charges 
due  the  seller  for  the  price,  and  the 
carrier  for  the  carriage,  of  the  goods. 


i^Ol  '^'ii^  ^'^W  OF  CARRIEKS. 

or  with  a  request  to  collect,  docs  not  create  an  undertaking  on  the 
part  of  the  carrier  not  to  deliver  until  the  goods  are  paid  for/^ 
An  express  company  is  not  liable  for  failure  to  collect  on  delivery 
of  a  package  sent  to  it  for  carriage  with  instructions  so  to  collect, 
where  the  receipt  given  therefor  was,  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
sender,  that  used  for  ordinary  packages,  upon  M^hich  only  express 
charges  are  collected.^^  After  the  carrier  has  tendered  a  package 
scut  C.  O.  D.  to  the  consignee  and  demanded  the  money,  and  after 
the  consignee  has  had  a  reasonable  time  to  call  for  and  receive 
it,  the  carrier  holds  the  package  as  warehouseman  and  not  as  a 
common  carrier,  and  is  thereafter  responsible  for  the  care  of  a 
warehouseman  merely.®*  If  the  consignee  refuses  to  receive  and 
pay  for  the  goods,  or  is  unknown  or  cannot  be  found,  the  liability 
of  the  carrier  becomes  that  of  a  warehouseman,  but  it  should 
notify  the  consignor  and  hold  the  goods  for  further  instructions, 
or  subject  to  the  consignor's  order."  The  acceptance  by  the  car- 
rier of  the  consignee's  check,  payable  to  the  order  of  the  consignor, 
for  the  amount  to  be  collected,  which  the  consignor  accepts  with- 
out objection,  relieves  the  carrier  from  liability,  even  though  the 
drawer  had  no  funds  in  the  bank  when  the  check  was  drawn."^ 
So,  the  taking  of  the  consignee's  acceptance  of  a  draft  drawn 

58.  Tooker  v.  Gormer,  2  Hilt.  (N.  61.  Hasse  v.  American  Express  Co., 
Y.)  71;  Wells  v.  American  Express  94  Mich.  153,  53  N.  W.  918,  47  Alb. 
Co.,  44  Wis.  342.                                            L.   J.   25;    American    Express  €o.   v. 

59.  Smith  y.  Southern  Express  Greenhalge,  80  111.  68;  American 
Co.,  104  Ala.  387,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  etc..  Express  Co.  v.  Wolfe,  79  111.  430. 
Cas.   168.  62.  Rathbun  v.  Citizens  Steamboat 

60.  Weed  v.  Barney,  45  N.  Y.  344,  Co.,  76  N.  Y.  376,  32  Am.  Rep.  321, 
6  Am.  Rep.  96;  Zinn  v.  New  Jersey  57  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  191.  Compare 
Steamboat  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  442;  Gibson  Walker  v.  Walker,  5  Heisk.  (Tenn.) 
V.    American,    etc.,    Express    Co.,    1  425. 

Hun  (N.  Y.)  387;  Marshall  v.  Amf^r-  The  power  of  a  factor  to  waive  col- 
ican  Express  Co.,  7  Wis.  1,  73  Am.  lection. —  Where  a  commercial  agent 
Dec.  381;  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Dar-  has  sold  goods  on  credit,  which  are 
nell,  31  Ind.  20;  Storr  v.  Crowley,  forwarded  by  his  principal  by  ex- 
1  McClel.  &  Y.  129.  So  where  the  press,  and  marked  "C.  0.  D,,"  the  ex- 
carrier  has  limited  his  liability  to  pressman  having  no  notice  of  any 
that  of  a  warehous-eman  for  goods  limitation  of  the  agent's  authority, 
while  they  are  waiting  to  be  called  may,  upon  the  order  of  the  agent,  de- 
fer. Pacific  Express  Co.  v.  Wallace,  liver  the  goods  without  payment  of 
60  Ark.  100,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  the  price.  Daylight  Burner  Co,  v. 
170,  29  S.  W.  32.  Odlin,  51  N.  H.  56,  12  Am.  Rep.  45. 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY.  205^ 

against  the  shipment,  after  the  consignor  knew  that  the  goods  had 
been  delivered  without  production  of  the  bill  of  lading,  and  that 
his  intention  to  prevent  a  delivery  of  the  goods  until  payment  of 
the  purchase  price  had  been  thereby  defeated,  will  operate  as  a 
waiver  of  the  consignor's  right  of  action  against  the  carrier  for 
conversion  for  such  delivery.^  Where  goods,  in  the  usual  course 
of  business,  are  shipped  on  freight,  to  be  sold  by  the  owner  of  the 
vessel  for  a  certain  freight,  or  are  consigned  to  the  master  for  sale 
and  returns,  the  owner  of  the  vessel  is  liable,  as  well  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  proceeds  to  the  shipper,  as  for  the  safe  carriage  of  the 
goods.®*  This  is  held  to  be  the  rule,  although  no  special  compensa- 
tion beyond  the  freight,  is  allowed  for  the  sale  of  the  goods  and 
the  return  of  the  money.®^  The  carrier  is  not  liable  where  the  con- 
signee retains  a  part  of  the  goods  and  returns  the  others,  paying 
for  those  retained,  which  amount  and  the  goods  not  accepted  are 
returned  to  the  consignor,®^  and  where  the  carrier  collects  only 
part  of  the  amount  due,  but  remits  all  that  is  collected,  such  pay- 
ment must  be  applied  by  the  consignor  to  that  particular  shipment 
so  as  to  relieve  the  carrier."  The  consignee  is  entitled  to  a  reason- 
able time  in  which  to  call  for  the  goods  and  pay  the  amount  due, 
and  the  carrier  is  liable  in  damages  for  returning  the  goods  to  the 
consignor  without  allowing  a  reasonable  time  for  payment  to  the 
consignee.^  The  consignee  has  the  right  to  a  reasonable  oppor- 
tunity to  examine  the  goods  before  accepting  them,  and  a  delivery 
to  the  consignee  for  the  purpose  of  inspection,  even  though  he 
pay  the  price  conditioned  upon  its  return  to  him  if  the  goods  on 

63.  Southern    R.    Co.    v.    Kinchen,  authority  to  the  captain  to  act  as  a 
10.3  Ga.  186',  29  S.  E.  816.  factor,   or   that   he   had   implied   au 

64.  Emery  v.  Hersey,  4  Greenl.  thority  by  the  usage  of  trade;  Zol 
(Me.)  407,  16  Am.  Dec.  268;  S.  P.  linger  v.  Steamer  Emma,  3  Cent.  L 
Moseley  v.  Lord,  2  Conn.   389;   Har-  J.   285. 

rington  v.  McShane,   2   Watts    (Pa.)  65.  Kemp   v.   Coughtry,    11    Johns 

443,  27  Am.  Dec.  321,  where  the  boat  (N.   Y.)    107. 

was   accidentally   burned   on   her    re-  66.  Feiber  v.  Manhattan  Dist.  Tel 

turn,  with  the  money  received  on  the  Co.,  3  N.  Y.  Supp.  116,  4  N.  Y.  Supp 

sale   of    goods;    Taylor    v.    Wells,    3  555. 

Watts    (Pa.)    65,   where  the   captain  67.  American       Express       Co. 

failed  to  account  for  the  proceeds  the  Lesem,  39  111.  312. 

owner  was  held  not  answerable  with-  68.  Great      Westf^rn      R.      Co. 

out  proof  that  he  had  given  express  Crouch.  3  H.  &  N.  183. 


2(J6  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

examination  prove  unsatisfactory,  is  not  such  a  delivery  as  will 
render  the  carrier  liable  to  the  shipper  for  the  amount  directed 
to  be  collected  on  delivery/*  If  a  carrier  deliver  a  package  marked 
"  C.  O.  D."  to  the  consignee,  and  receive  payment,  and  the  trans- 
action turns  out  to  be  a  fraud,  and  the  package  worthless,  the  con- 
signee may  reclaim  his  money,  at  any  time  before  the  carrier  has 
paid  it  over  to  the  fraudulent  consignor^"  The  consignee  may 
likewise  recover  the  price  paid  to  the  carrier  for  damaged  goods 
received  C.  O.  D.,  provided  he  has  notified  the  carrier  within  a 
reasonable  time  that  the  goods  were  worthless  and  has  offered  to 
return  the  goods  to  it.''^ 

§  33.  Confusion  of  goods. 

As  a  rule  the  consignee  is  entitled  to  the  delivery  of  the  identical 
goods  shipped  to  him,  and  the  carrier  is  liable  for  any  damages 
caused  by  a  delivery  of  other  goods,  by  reason  of  an  admixture  or 
confusion  of  goods  through  mistake  or  otherwise.^^  The  rule  is 
not  applied  in  the  case  of  grain  consigned  to  elevators,  and  where 
a  warehouseman,  without  special  agreement,  but  according  to  cus- 

69.  Aaron  v.  Adams  Express  Co..  71.  Hardy  v.  American  Express 
37  Ohio  L.  J.  183;  Lyons  v.  Hill,  46  Co.,  182  Mass.  328,  65  N.  E.  375,  59 
N.  H.  49,  88  Am.  Dec.  189;  Wilson  v.      L.  R.  A.  731. 

Elliott,  57  N.  H.  316;  Avery  v.  Stew-  72.  The     Augusta,     29     Fed.     334, 

art,  2  Conn.  74,  7  Am.  Dec.  240;  Ish-  where  bales  of  corkwood   shipped   in 

erwood  v.  Whitmore,  11  M.  &  W.  347.  good  order  were  opened  for  storage, 

When   carrier   may   refuse   inspec-  and   in  rebailiug,  different   sizes   and 

lion. — The  agent  of  an  express  com-  qualities  were  so  mixed  as  to  reduce 

pany     may,     without     rendering     the  the  market  value,   and  the  consignee 

company  liable  to  any  action  in  behalf  refused  to  receipt  for  them  as  in  food 

of    the    consignee,    refuse    to    permit  order,  and  they  were  sold  by  the  ship- 

him   to   examine   the   goods   until    he  owner,  it  was  held  that  the  consignee 

has  paid  express  charges  and  accept-  could   receive   their   sound   value   lesa 

ed   delivery;    and  on  his  refusal,   re-  freight;  Rice  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp., 

turn   the  goods   to   the   consignor,   if  98    Mass.    212,    wherein    it   was   held 

the  consignor  has  specially  instructed  that  the  consignee  was  entitled  to  re- 

them    to    do   so,   or    if   the   company  cover  damages  for  coal  being  unload- 

took  charge  of  the  goods  subject  to  a  ed  by  the  side  of  the  railroad  track 

general  regulation,  known  to  the  con-  without  preparing  the  ground  to  re- 

signor,  prescribing  this  course.    Wiltsc  ceive  the  coal  by  laying  down  boards 

T.  Barnes,  46  Iowa,  210.  or    otherwise,    so    that    the    different 

70.  Herrick  v  Grallagher,  60  Barb,  sorts  and  sizes  of  ooal  were  mixed  and 
(N.  Y.)    566.  soil  mingl'ed  with  it. 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


267 


torn,  mixes  the  grain  of  several  depositors  in  a  common  mass,  they 
become  tenants  in  common  of  the  entire  amount  of  like  quality, 
and  the  carrier  may,  in  accordance  with  accepted  usage,  discharge 
his  obligation  by  delivery  of  grain  of  the  same  grade  and  kind  as 
was  shipped,  and  for  the  negligent  destruction  of  the  same  each 
depositor  can  recover  the  value  of  his  grain.^^     Where  the  con- 


Default  or  negligence  of  carrier 
must  be  shown. — Consignees  of  iron 
wiiose  agents  assisted  in  selecting 
what  was  delivered,  and  accepted  it 
as  what  they  were  entitled  to  by 
their  bill  of  lading,  and  caused  it  to 
be  sent  away,  must  show  satisfac- 
torily that  what  was  thus  accepted 
was  less  than  should  have  been  de- 
livered, and  that  their  failure  to  re- 
ceive all  they  should  have  received  is 
attributable  to  some  default  on  the 
part  of  the  ship,  in  order  to  hold  the 
latter  liable  for  a  deficiency,  under  a 
bill  of  lading  stating  that  the  vessel 
is  not  accountable  for  the  number  of 
j)iece3  or  weight.  Eaton  v.  Neu- 
mark,  37  Pel.  375,  affg.  33  Fed.  891. 
See  also,  Milligan  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
Co.,  17  U.  C.  C.  P.  115. 

73.  Arthur  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
61  Iowa,  648,  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
285;  Sexton  v.  Graham,  53  Iowa  181, 
where  grain  is  delivered  to  a  ware- 
houseman and  a  receipt  taken  which 
provides  that  the  grain  may  be  stored 
with  other  grain  of  the  same  quality, 
the  transaction  constitutes  a  bail- 
ment and  not  a  sale,  even  though  the 
warehouseman  is  continually  adding 
grain  on  his  own  account  to  the  com- 
mon mass,  and  shipping  away  there- 
from; Pratt  v.  Bryant,  20  Vt.  333,  if 
the  owner  of  goods  intentionally  in- 
termingle them  with  gooda  of  the 
same  kind  belonging  to  another  per- 
son, but  through  neglig<?nce  merely, 
and  not  wilfully  or  fradulently,  his 
property  in  them  is  not  lost;  but  hia 


remedy  is  not  by  action  of  book  ac- 
count,   even    though    his    goods    may 
have  been  used  by  the  owner  of  the 
goods  with  which  they  were  thus  in- 
termingled;    Cushing    V.     Breed,     14 
Allen   (Mass.),  376,  92  Am.  Dec,  777, 
where  several  parties  store  grain  in  a 
grain  elevator,  and  it  is  put  into  one 
mass,   according  to  the  usage  of  the 
trade,    they   are   tenants   in   common 
thereof,  and  a  valid  title  to  a  quan- 
tity of  the  grain  will  pass  by  a  de- 
livery from  the  vendor  to  the  vendee 
of  an  order  to  deliver  such  quantity, 
directed  to  the  owners  of  the  elevator, 
and   accepted   by   them   in   the   usual 
manner   by   retaining   the   order   and 
entering  it  on  their  books,  although 
there  is  no  separation  of  the  quantity 
sold  from  the  rest  of  the  mass;  Keeler 
v.   Goodwin,   111   Mass.   490,   no  title 
passes    on    a    sale    of    part    of   goods 
lying   in  bulk   until  separation,   and, 
on    delivery   to    a   carrier   for   trans- 
portation to  the  buyer,  the  seller  may 
suspend   such   inchoate   delivery,   and 
revoke   the    authority    of    any    inter- 
mediary to  perfect  it.     See  also  Bry- 
ant V.  Clifford,  13  Mete.  (Mass.)  138; 
Wingate     v.     Smith,     20     Me.     287; 
Stearns    v.    Raymond,    26    Wis.    74; 
Moore  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  7  Lans,  (N.  Y.) 
39;   Nowlen  v.  Colt,   6  Hill    (N.  Y.) 
461;    Forbes  v.   Boston,   etc.,   R.   Co., 
133  Mass.  154,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
80;    Roblin    v.   Jackson,    13   Man.   R. 
(Can.)   328.     Compare  Stephenson  v. 
Little,  10  Mich.  433;  Ryder  v.  Hath- 
away, 21  Pick.   (Mass.)   298. 


268  THE  LAW  OF  CAHRIERS. 

sigument  note  and  shipping  receipt,  constituting  the  contract  be- 
tween the  parties,  shows  that  such  was  the  contract  and  intention 
of  the  parties,  the  consignee  is  entitled  to  demand  the  specific 
grain  shipped  and  to  recover  damages  for  a  failure  to  deliver  it.''* 

§  34.  Statutory  penalties  for  refusing  to  deliver  promptly. 

A  statute  to  compel  railroads  to  deliver  freight  promptly  on 
tender  of  proper  charges  is  a  valid  exercise  of  the  police  power  of 
a  State,  and  not  an  unlawful  attempt  to  regulate  interstate  com- 
merce.^^  A  statute  providing  that,  on  failure  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany to  deliver  freight  on  tender  of  charges,  it  shall  be  liable  to 
the  owner  to  an  amount  equal  to  the  freight  charges  for  every  day 
of  detention,  is  a  remedial  and  not  a  penal  statute,  and  not  uncon- 
stitutional, though  providing  a  civil  rather  than  criminal  remedy, 
and  allowing  an  excess  of  damages  over  what  coul,d  be  recovered 
in  an  ordinary  action,  such  damages  being  exemplary.'®  The  gen- 
eral rule  is  that  a  State  cannot  exclude,  directly  or  indirectly,  the 
subjects  of  interstate  commerce,  or,  by  the  imposition  of  burdens 
thereon,  regulate  such  commerce,  without  congressional  permis- 

74.  Leader  v.  Northern  R.  Co.,  3  a  part  of  the  contract;  and  the  oom- 
Ont.  Rep.  92,  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  pany  cannot,  without  rendering  itself 
287.  liable   for  the   penalty   prescribed   by 

75.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Han-  statute  for  every  day's  detention,  re- 
niford,  49  Ark.  291,  30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  fuse  to  deliver  the  goods  at  such  in- 
Cas.  67,  applying  to  every  member  of  termediate  point  on  a  tender  of  the 
a  class, — to  all  railroads,  for  exam-  local  rate,  on  the  ground  that  the 
pie,  it  is  not  special  legislation;  Gulf,  bill  of  lading  is  controlled  by  the 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dwyer,  75  Tex.  572,  7  through  tariff  schedule,  or  on  the 
L.  R.  A.  478,  7  R.  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  ground  that  such  tender  vi^as  made 
355,  12  S.  W.  1001,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  under  protest.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
Cas.  503;  Dwyer  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  v.  Roberts,  3  Tex,  Civ.  App.  370,  22 
id;   St.  Louis]!  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKee,  S.  W.  183. 

4  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  7.  A  carrier  cannot  justify  an  unjust 

76.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harry,  or  unreasonable  charge  by  observing 
63  Tex.  256,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  the  classification  and  rates  of  a  pub- 
502.  A  bill  of  lading  for  through  lished  schedule,  under  a  statute  pro- 
shipment  of  goods  to  a  designated  hibiting  unjust  discrimination  in 
point,  "  subject  to  the  published  charges  and  the  making  of  unjust  ani 
tariff  of  the  company  and  its  con-  unreasonable  charges.  Little  Rock, 
nections,"  makes  a  published  local  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bruce,  55  Ark.  65,  17  S. 
tariff  rate  for  an  intermediate  point  W.  363. 


TEKMINATION   OF   LIABILITY. 


203 


sion ;"  but  a  statute  imposing  a  penalty  upon  carriers  for  with- 
holding freight  from  its  consignees  has  been  held  not  unconstitu- 
tional in  its  application  to  freight  shipped  from  points  without 
the  Stated*  The  penalty  provided  by  such  a  statute  applies  only 
to  a  company  which  has  itself  executed,  authorized,  or  ratified 
the  execution  of  the  bill  of  lading,  and  a  defendant  carrier  which 
refuses  to  deliver  goods  on  tender  of  the  charges  shown  by  the  bill 
of  lading,  claiming  that  it  had  paid  to  another  carrier  the  charges 
shown  by  the  waybill,  which  exceeded  those  in  the  bill  of  lading, 
is  not  liable  to  the  statutory  penalty  where  the  evidence  shows  that 
the  bill  was  executed  by  another  carrier  and  had  not  been  ratified 
by  the  defendant.^^  A  violation  of  the  statute  is  not  excused  by 
the  fact  that  the  plaintiff  refused  to  exhibit  or  surrender  the  bill 
of  lading.*"  But  the  statute  cannot  be  enforced  when  it  conflicts 
with  the  Federal  statute,  since  to  enforce  the  penalty  would  be 
punishing  for  an  obedience  to  the  law  of  Congress,  a  disobedience 
of  which  would  constitute  a  misdemeanor.*^  Such  a  statute  is 
penal,  and  one  enforcing  the  penalty  must  bring  himself  strictly 
within  its  provisions.*^     The  statute   does  not  give  -validity  to 


77.  Lyng  v.  Michigan,  135  U.  S. 
161,  34  L.  Ed.  150,  3  Inters.  Com. 
Rep.  143,  10  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  725; 
Baird  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 
Fed.  592,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  281, 
7  R.  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  516. 

78.  Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Lillard  (Tex.  App.),  16  S.  W.  654; 
Dwyer  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  supra. 

79.  Dwyer  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75 
Tex,  572,  7  L.  R.  A.  478,  7  R.  R.  & 
Corp.  L.  J.  355,  12  S.  W.  1001,  42 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  503;  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Dwyer,  84  Tex.  194,  19  S. 
W.  470;  Fordyce  v.  Johnson,  56 
Ark.  430,  19  S.  W.  1050;  Loewen- 
berg  T.  Arkansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 
Ark.  439,  19  S.  W.  1051.  This  is 
held  to  be  especially  so  where  the 
excess  is  due  *o  misrouting  by  one 
<yf  the  carriers.     Id. 

A  declaration  which  shows  that  the 


bill  of  lading  was  issued  by  a  carrier 
other  than  the  defendant,  is  insuffi- 
cient unless  it  also  avers  that  the 
two  carriers  were  partners.  Miller 
V.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Tex.  518. 
See  also  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adair 
(Tex.  App.),  14  S.  W,  1076;  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  McKee,  4  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  Cas.  §  7. 

80.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCown 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  25  S.  W.  435; 
Gulf,  ete.,  R.  Go.  v.  Dwyer,  supra; 
Dwyer  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Tex. 
707,  32  Am.    Eng.  R.  Cas.  461. 

81.  Dillingham  v.  Fischl,  1  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  546,  21  S.  W.  554;  Wright 
v.  Howe  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  24  S.  W. 
314;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  M<sCown 
(Tex.  Civ.  App),  25  S.  W.  435. 

82.  Schloss  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  85  Tex.  601,  22  S.  W.  1014;  St. 
Ijouis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Johnson,    53 


270 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


Stipulations  in  a  bill  of  lading  which  are  the  result  of  fraud  or 
mistake,  which  may  always  be  shown,  as,  for  example,  as  to  the 
weight  of  the  goods.  The  material  part  of  the  bill  of  lading  is 
that  which  fixes  the  charges  per  hundred  pounds  and  the  carrier 
may  recover  for  the  whole  amount  actually  carried  at  the  rate 
stated  in  the  bill.^^ 


§  35.  Demand  of  goods  by  consignee. 

The  general  rule  is  that  the  carrier  is  bound  to  deliver  goods  to 
the  owner  or  his  agent,  personally,  and  for  that  purpose,  to  seek 
him  at  the  place  of  delivery,  in  the  absence  of  a  special  contract, 
or  proof  of  a  general  usage.**  But  the  carrier  of  goods  by  railway 
or  by  water  is  not  bound  to  seek  out  the  consignee  and  make  an 
offer  to  deliver  them.  It  is  the  business  of  the  consignee  to  repair 
to  the  depot  to  receive  the  goods  and  request  a  delivery  of  them, 
and  if  the  carrier  refuse  to  deliver  them  without  valid  excuse,  an 
action  will  lie.*''    An  action  cannot  be  maintained  against  a  com- 


Ark.  282,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
381,  the  plaintiff  is  bound  to  tender 
the  full  amount  of  charges  due  on 
the  entire  shipment;  Little  Rock, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hanniford,  49  Ark. 
291,  30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  67,  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  weigh 
the  goods  within  a  reasonable  time 
after  their  receipt,  where  the  weight 
is  not  stated  in  the  bill  of  lading, 
and  ascertain  the  amount  of  charges 
according  to  the  rates  specified  in  the 
bill  of  lading. 

'^.  Baird  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
41  Fed.  591,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
281;  Johnson  v.  Fort  Worth,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  619;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Loonie,  84  Tex.  259; 
iSabdne,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cruse,  83  Tex. 
460. 

84.  Schroeder  v.  Hudson  River  R. 
Co.,  5  Duer  (N.  Y.),  55. 

85.  Michigan  Southern  R.  Oo.  T. 
Bivens,  13  Ind.  263. 


Insufficient  demand. — An  order  ad- 
dressed to  a  railway  agent  as  such, 
who  was  agent  for  an  express  com- 
pany at  the  same  place,  and  who  kept 
the  freight  and  express  matter  in 
the  same  room,  to  deliver  to  bear**- 
any  "freight"  of  the  drawer  in  ni» 
possession,  is  sufficient  to  charge  the 
express  company  with  liability  for 
the  agent's  failure  to  deliver  to  the 
bearer  goods  which  had  been  some 
time  to  the  drawer's  knowledge,  in 
the  express  office,  there  being  nothing 
in  the  order  calling  the  agent's  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  express  mat- 
ter was  called  for.  Wells,  Fargo  & 
Co.  V.  Windham,  1  Tex,  Civ.  App. 
267,  21  S.  W.  402.  See  also  Worden 
V.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  13  Ont.  Rep. 
652,  30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  127. 
Compare  Morgan  v.  Dibble,  29  Tex. 
107,  94  Am.  Dec.  264. 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


271 


xnon  carrier  for  failure  to  carry  and  deliver  goods  intrusted  to  it, 
until  a  demand  for  the  goods  has  been  made.*^  But  a  demand  is 
unnecessary,  where,  if  made,  it  would  be  unavailing  for  the  reason 
that  it  could  not  be  complied  with  by  the  carrier,  as  where  the 
goods  were  never  carried  to  their  destination,  or  the  company  had 
no  office  or  agent  there  of  whom  a  demand  might  be  made;"  or 
where  the  carrier  has  converted  the  goods  by  a  wrongful  delivery, 
or  they  have  been  lost  or  destroyed.^^  The  carrier  cannot  be 
charged  with  conversion  for  a  delay,  however  long,  until  the  goods 
have  been  demanded  of  the  carrier  and  their  delivery  refused.^^ 
An  inquiry  of  the  carrier  as  to  what  had  become  of  the  goods  is 
not  a  demand  so  as  to  render  the  carrier  liable  for  conversion.^" 

§  36.  Waiver  of  right  of  action  for  wrongful  delivery. 

A  common  carrier's  unauthorized  delivery  of  goods  may  be 
ratified  by  the  consignee.^^  In  the  absence  of  notice  to  the  contrary, 
any  delivery  which  discharges  the  carrier,  as  between  him  and  the 
consignee,  is  good  as  against  the  consignor.^^    The  owner  of  goods, 


86.  Jarrett  v.  Great  Northern  R 
Co.,  74  Minn.  477,  77  N.  W.  304 
Rome  R.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  14  Ga.  279 
Bird  V.  Georgia  R.  Co.,  72  Ga.  655 
Gregg  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  147  lU. 
556. 

87.  Schroeder  v.  Hudson  River  R. 
Co.,  5  Duer   (N.  Y.),  55. 

88.  Lester  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  93  Hun  (N.  Y.),  342,  36  N.  Y. 
Supp.  907;  Fulton  v.  Lydecker,  17 
N.  Y.  Supp.  451;  Ludwig  v.  Meyre, 
5  W.  &  S.  (Pa.)  435;  Wiggin  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  Mass.  201; 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heiden- 
heimer,  82  Tex.  195,  27  Am.  St.  Rep. 
861;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Go.  v.  Meyer, 
78  Ala.  597,  27  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
44. 

The  owner  of  a  chattel  may  main- 
tain trover  therefor  against  a  car- 
rier who,  on  demand,  refuses  to  de- 
liver it  up  until  he  shall  receive  for 
its  transportation  a  greater  amount 


than  the  price  agreed  upon,  and  he 
does  not  waive  the  effect  of  his  de- 
mand by  agreeing  that  the  goods 
may  remain  in  the  depot  until  he  can 
correspond  with  another  agent  about 
the  overcharge.  Northern  Transp. 
Co.  V.  Selick,  52  111.  249. 

A  judgment  or  receipt  is  competent 
evidence  of  a  demand  by  the  plain- 
tiff in  the  judgment  or  the  party 
who  executed  the  receipt.  McGill  v. 
Monette,  37  Ala.  49. 

89.  Ryland  &  Rankin  v.  Chesa- 
peake, etc.,  R.  Co.  (W.  Va.),  46  S. 
E.  923. 

90.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tjler 
Coffin  Co.  (Tex.  Oiv.  App.),  81  S.  W. 
826. 

91.  Converse  v,  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  58  N.  H.  521;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Clark,  (Tex.)  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
628. 

92.  O'Dougherty  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  1  Sup.  Ct.   (N.  Y.)   477.     But 


272  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

by  waiving-  any  of  his  rights  touching  the  delivery,  relieves  the 
carrier  from  his  liability,  so  far  as  the  waiver  extends,  and  if  the 
consignee  or  consignor  takes  charge  of  the  goods  before  they  have 
arrived  at  the  place  of  delivery,  the  carrier's  risk  then  terminates.®* 
A  consignee,  or  his  authorized  agent,  may  receive  goods  addressed 
to  him  in  the  hands  of  a  carrier,  at  any  place,  either  before  or 
after  arrival  at  their  place  of  destination,  and  such  acceptance 
operates  as  a  discharge  of  the  carrier  from  his  liability  to  the 
consignor.®*  An  acceptance  of  a  portion  of  the  goods  by  the  con- 
signee or  owner  at  a  place  other  than  that  specified  for  their  de- 
livery, will  not  relieve  the  carrier  from  its  obligation  to  deliver 
the  remainder.®^     Where  the  carrier  delivers  goods  to  the  wrong 


the  consignor  does  not  ratify  a  de- 
livery by  corresponding  with  the  con- 
signee in  reference  to  the  subject  of 
payment,  wliere  the  former  never  as- 
sented to  the  delivery,  and  shortly 
afterwards  called  the  carrier's  atten- 
tion to  the  matter,  and  insisted  all 
the  time  on  the  liability  of  the  car- 
rier. McSwegan  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  7  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  301,  40  N". 
Y.  Supp.  51.  See  Sanquer  v.  Lon- 
don, etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  C.  B.  163,  81  E. 
C.  L.  163,  3  C.  L.  R.  811. 

93.  Stone  v.  Waitt,  31  Me.  409,  52 
Am.  Dec.  621;  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Sargent,  19  Ohio  St.  438;  At- 
kisson  V.  Steamboat  Castle  Garden, 
28  Mo.  124,  but  the  carrier  will  not 
be  freed  from  the  responsibility  for 
damages  incurred  by  a  breach  of  his 
contract  of  affreightment. 

94.  Sweet  v.  Barney,  23  N.  Y. 
335;  Hotchkiss  v.  Artisans'  Bank,  2 
Abb.  Ct.  App.  Dec.  (N.  Y.)  203,  2 
Keyes  (N.  Y,),  564;  Piatt  v.  Wells, 
26   How.   Pr.    (N.   Y.)    442,   2   Robt. 

(N.  Y.)  116;  Haslam  v.  Adams  Ex- 
press Co.,  6  Bosw.  (  (N.  Y.)  235;  Par- 
sons v.  Hardy,  14  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
215,  28  Am.  Dec.  521;  Goodwin  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Barb.   (N. 


Y.)  195;  Jewell  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
Co.,  55  N.  H.  84;  Hill  v.  Humphreys, 
5  W.  &  S.  (Pa.)  123,  39  Am.  Dec. 
117;  The  Propeller  Mohawk,  8  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  153;  Dobbin  v.  Michigan 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  56  Mich.  522,  21 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  85.  See  also 
McAndrew  v.  Whitlock,  52  N.  Y.  40; 
Sunderland  v.  Westcott,  40  How.  (N. 
Y.)  469,  2  Sweeny  (N.  Y.),  263; 
Simmons  v.  Law,  3  Keyes  (N.  Y. ), 
220;  Nelson  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co., 
48  N.  Y.  507;  Robinson  v.  Chitten- 
den, 69  N.  Y.  533;  Kruder  v.  Elli- 
son, 47  N.  Y.  37.  Any  right  of  the 
carrier  to  compel  consignees  to  take 
goods  shipped  "  from  alongside "  is 
waived  by  the  carrier  unloading  the 
goods  on  to  the  deck.  The  Titania, 
131   Fed.  229. 

95.  Bissel  v.  Campbell,  54  N.  Y. 
353;  Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  Western 
Transp.  Co.,  51  N.  Y.  93;  Cox  v. 
Peterson,  30  Ala.  608,  68  Am.  Dec. 
145. 

But  if  the  carrier  delivered  all  he 
received,  his  liability  is  discharged, 
even  though  the  bill  of  lading  called 
for  more.  Abbe  v.  Eaton,  51  N.  Y. 
410. 


TERMINATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


273 


person,  the  fact  that  the  owner  receives  payment  from  such  person 
for  a  portion  of  the  goods  does  not  constitute  a  waiver  of  his  claim 
against  the  carrier  for  the  balance,  if  he  does  not  intend  such 
waiver.^  Where  a  consignee,  on  being  notified  of  the  arrival  of 
goods  at  a  wrong  destination,  directs  their  forwarding  to  another 
place,  and  there  receives  them,  such  acceptance  operates  as  a  waiver 
of  the  carrier's  liability  for  the  erroneous  delivery.^^ 

§  37.  Right  of  carrier  to  demand  receipt  upon  delivery. 

A  carrier  has  the  right  to  demand  a  receipt  for  goods  carried 
by  it  before  it  will  be  boimd  to  deliver  the  goods,  and  the  consignee 
has  the  right  to  an  opportunity  to  examine  the  condition  of  the 
goods  before  signing  the  receipt.^^  A  regulation  requiring  a  con- 
signee to  receipt  for  grain  weighed  into  a  delivery  bin,  before 
taking  the  same  from  such  bin,  and  before  he  can  ascertain,  except 
from  the  carrier's  statement,  whether  the  quantity  of  grain  re- 
ceipted for  is  there  or  not,  is  unreasonable  and  void.®*     Where 


96.  Lester  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  92  Hun  (N.  Y.),  342,  36  N.  Y. 
Supp.  907. 

97.  Hayman  v.  Canadian  Pac.  Ry. 
Co.,  43  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  74,  86  N 
Y.  Supp.  728. 

98.  Skinner  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  13  Iowa,  191. 

A  receipt  required  to  be  given  for 
goods  before  they  are  examined  is 
prima  facie  evidence  of  what  it  con- 
tains; but  it  does  not  conclude  the 
party  from  showing  the  actual  con- 
dition of  his  property.  Porter  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Iowa,  73. 

A  receipt  given  by  a  party  to  « 
common  carrier  for  goods  transported 
by  it  will  not  be  set  laaide  on  the 
bare  allegation  that  he  never  re- 
ceived such  goods,  with  no  explana- 
tion tending  to  explain  how  he  came 
to  make  a  formal  admission  of  their 
receipt.  Chapman  v.  Railroad  Co.,  7 
Phila.    (Pa.)   204. 

18 


Where  consignee  of  goods  employed 
an  express  company  to  cart  the  goods 
to  his  liome,  and  its  agent  at  the  de- 
pot looked  at  the  box  containing  tlit, 
goods,  and  signed  a  "  Clear  "  receipt, 
making  no  complaint,  this  did  not 
preclude  the  consignee  from  showinyr 
that  the  goods  were  wet.  Mears  v. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Conn.),  53 
Atl.  610,  56  L.  R.  A.  884. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
damages  to  a  dog  in  transportation, 
that  the  consignee  removed  the  dog 
at  its  destination  in  the  agent's  ab- 
sence and  receipted  for  it  in  good 
condition  is  not  a  conclusive  defense 
against  recovery,  where  the  consignee 
bad  not  examined  the  dog  at  the  time 
of  giving  such  receipt.  Southern  Ex- 
press Co.  y.  Ashford,  126  Ala.  59*, 
28  So.  732. 

98.  Cliristian  t.  First  Div.  ^)4k 
Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Minn.  21. 


274  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

freight  is  iu  the  warehouse  ready  for  delivery,  the  carrier  is  not 
bound  to  take  receipts  for  it,  part  by  part  as  it  i:.  taken  away,  but 
may  require  a  receipt  for  the  whole  before  delivering  any/  A 
consignee  of  goods  cannot  obtain  possession  of  them  from  a  carrier 
without  producing  the  bill  of  lading  or  accoimting  for  it,  if  the 
carrier  require  it  as  proof  of  the  right  of  the  person  applying  to 
receive  the  goods.^  But  a  common  carrier  may  not  refuse  to  de- 
liver the  goods  to  the  consignee  named  in  the  bill  of  lading,  on 
the  ground  that  the  consignee  refuses  to  surrender  the  bill  of 
lading,  although  he  permits  the  carrier  to  inspect  it.* 

1.  Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ayers,  29      also,    Delivery   to   holder   of    bill    of 
N.  J.  L.  393,  80  Am.  Dec.  215.  lading,  §  9,  ante. 

2.  Bass  V.  Glover,  63  G&.  746.    See  3.  Dwyer  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69 

Tex.  707. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

CONVERSIOJT   BY   CaREIEE AcTIONS   AgAINST    CaEEIEE. 

Section     l.  Carrier  is  liable  in  conversion  for  misfeasance. 

2.  Receiving  goods  from  one  in  possession  not  conversion. 

3.  Carrier  not  liable  in  conversion  for  mere  nonfeasance. 

4.  Action  for  loss  or  injury.    Nature  and  form  of  action. 

6.  Actions  for  loss  or  injury.     Actions  ex  contractu  or  ex  delicto, 

6.  Actions  for  loss  or  injury.     Rights  of  action. 

7.  Actions  for  loss  or  injury.     Payment  of  freight. 

8.  Custody  and  control  of  goods.    Rights  of  carrier.    Action  by  car- 

rier against  third  persons, 

9.  Actions  for  loss  or  injury.     Parties. 

10.  Actions  for  delay.     Nature  and  form. 

11.  Actions  for  delay.     Conditions  precedent. 

12.  Actions  against  connecting  carriers.     Nature  and  form. 

13.  Actions  against  connecting  carriers.     Rights  of  action. 

14.  Actions  against  connecting  carriers.     Parties. 

15.  Actions  for  refusal  to  receive  or  transport  goods. 

§  1.  Carrier  liable  in  conversion  for  misfeasance. 

The  principle  is  well  established  that  a  common  carrier  may 
be  held  in  trover  when  it  is  guilty  of  misfeasance,  although  the 
wrong  may  have  been  unintentional.  Thus,  trover  will  lie  against ' 
a  carrier  for  negligence  where  goods  have  been  lost  to  the  owner 
by  the  act  of  the  carrier,  though  there  may  have  been  no  intentional 
wrong;  as  where  goods  are  by  mistake,  or  under  a  forged  order, 
delivered  to  the  wrong  person.  It  also  lies  where  the  carrier  re- 
fuses to  deliver  the  goods  according  to  contract,  it  having  the  pos- 
session. A  conversion  implies  a  wrongful  act,  a  misdelivery,  a 
wrongful  disposition  or  withholding  of  property.  There  must  be 
proof  of  a  wrongful  disposition  or  withholding  to  establish  con- 
version.^    Misdelivery  or  delivery  to  the  wrong  person  negligently 

1.  N.  y.— Wamsley  v.  Atla«  Steam-  N.  Y.  Supp.  761;  Gillet  t.  Roberta, 
ship  Co.,  16S  N.  Y.  533,  61  N.  E.  893,  57  N.  Y.  28;  Hawkins  v.  Hoffman,  6 
Tevg.   50  App.   Div.    (N.  Y.)    199,   63      Hill    (N.  Y.),  588,  41  Am.  Dec.  767; 

(275) 


276 


THE  LAW  OF  CAKRIERS. 


made  by  a  carrier  of  an  article  intrusted  to  it  constitutes  a  con- 


Packard  V.  G«tmaii,  4  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
615,  21  Am.  Dec.  166;  Brig^  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
515;  Ricliarda  v.  Pitts  Agricultural 
Works,  37  Hun  (N.  Y.),  1;  Parmen- 
ter  V.  American  Box  Macli.  Co.,  44 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  47,  60  N.  Y.  Supp. 
432,  appeal  dismissed,  162  N.  Y.  648. 

Oa. — Merchants'  &  Miners'  Transp, 
Co.  V.  Moore  &  Co.,  124  Ga.  482,  52 
S.  E.  802. 

III. — Paxsific  Express  Co.  v.  Shearer, 
160  111.  215,  43  N.  E.  816,  43  Cent. 
L.  J.  35. 

Mass. — Spooner  v.  Manchester,  133 
Mass.  270. 

There  are  cases  in  which  evidence 
of  demand  and  refusal  is  sufficient  to 
sustain  a  recovery  in  conversion,  but 
this  rule  applies  against  common  car- 
riers only  in  exceptional  cases. 
Wamsley  v.  Atlas  Steamship  Co.,  168 
N.  Y.  533. 

Plaintiir  shipped  certain  goods, 
which,  on  being  refused  by  the  con- 
signee, plaintiff  directed  to  be  re- 
turned to  him.  The  goods  were  re- 
turned under  an  "  astray  waybill," 
not  accompanied  by  any  bill  indicat- 
ing back  charges,  whereupon  defend- 
ant's agent  refused  to  deliver  the 
goods  until  he  obtained  information 
as  to  the  amount  of  such  back 
charges,  and,  on  obtaining  such  in- 
formation, the  agent  notified  plain- 
tiff thereof,  and  tendered  the  goods  to 
plaintiff  on  payment  of  the  charges, 
which  plaintiff  refused.  Held,  that 
the  agent's  refusal  to  deliver  in  the 
first  instance  did  not  constitute  a 
conversion,  and  hence  the  carrier 
was  only  responsible  for  loss  accruing 
because  of  the  delay  in  delivery  after 


the  goods  were  returned.  Norfolk  A 
W.  Ry.  Co.  V.  Potter,  110  Va.  427,  66 
S.  E.  34. 

Where  possession  of  certain  freight 
for  ti-ansportation  was  legitimately 
obtained  by  a  carrier,  there  must 
have  been  a  demand  therefor  by  the 
consignee  and  a  refusal  by  the  car- 
rier to  deliver  the  same  in  order  to 
show  a  conversion,  unless  there  was 
proof  of  a  dealing  with  the  property 
by  the  carrier  otherwise.  Louisville 
&  N.  R.  Co.  V.  Britton,  —  Ala.  — ,  39 
So.  585, 

A  carrier,  having  notified  the  owner 
of  goods  that  they  have  arrived  and 
that  he  must  pay  the  freight  and  re- 
ceive them,  must  know  whether  they 
have  in  fact  arrived  or  not,  and  is 
guJLty  of  conversion  if,  upon  demand 
after  the  goods  have  arrived,  he  tells 
the  owner  they  have  not  come,  and 
fails  to  deliver  them,  although  he 
does  not  im  express  words  refuse  to 
deliver  them.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co. 
V.  Lawson,  88  Ky.  496,  11  Ky.  Law. 
Rep,  38,  11  S.  W.  511. 

Where  a  carrier  becomes  liable  to 
a  consignee  of  goods  for  damages  Ib 
transit,  and  such  damages  exceed  the 
freight  bill,  its  refusal  to  deliver  the 
goods  to  the  consignee  on  demand 
constitutes  a  conversion.  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co,  V,  Peru-Van  Zandt  Impl«- 
ment  Co.,  73  Kan.  295,  6  L.  R.  A.  N. 
S.  1058,  87  Pac.  80. 

Where  goods  shipped  do  not  reock 
the  destination,  the  carrier  is  guilty 
of  conversion  and  liable  for  their 
value,  except  where  an  act  of  God  in- 
tervenes. R.  W.  Williamson  &  Co. 
V.  Texas  &,  P.  Ry.  Co.,  —  Tex.  Oiv. 
App.  — ,  138  S.  W.  807. 


CONVERSION   BY   CARRIER. 


277 


version,  for  which  an  action  of  trover  will  lie.^  A  carrier  or  ware- 
houseman is  liable  in  trover  for  the  wrongful  delivery  of  goods 
intrusted  to  it  for  shipment  or  storage;  but  such  right  of  action 
may  be  waived  by  any  action  which  ratifies  the  delivery,  and 
thereby  deprives  the  carrier  or  warehouseman  of  the  right  to  re- 
cover over  against  the  person  to  whom  the  delivery  was  made.^  A 
common  carrier  is  liable  for  the  conversion  of  goods,  where,  having 
received  them  to  be  carried  to  a  designated  place,  it  transports 
them  to  another  place  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  their  coming 
to  the  possession  of  the  consignee  and  depriving  him  of  their  use 
and  disposition.*    But  to  constitute  a  conversion  of  property  sub- 


2.  Ala. — ^Tishomingo  Sav.  Inst,  T. 
Johnson,  Nesbitt  &  Co.,  146  Ala.  691, 
40  So.  503,  where  a  bill  of  lading  was 
sent  to  a  bank  as  security  for  an  at- 
tached draft,  a  delivery  of  the  gooda 
by  the  carrier  to  another  than  the 
bank  was  a  conversion.  Central  R., 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Lampley,  76  Ala.  357,  52 
Am.  Rep.  334. 

Ga. — Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.  v. 
Goodwin,  1  Ga.  App.  351,  57  S.  E. 
1070. 

III. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rose, 

20  111.  App.  670. 

Md. — Seaboard  Air  Line  Ry.  Oo.  v. 
Phillips,  108  Md.  285,  70  Atl.  232. 

Mass. — Forbes  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  133  Mass.  154;  Claflin  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Allen   (Mass.),  341. 

Mich. — Gibbons  v.  Farwell,  63 
Mich.  344,  6  Am.  St.  Rep.  301,  29  N. 
W.   855. 

Minn. — JelTett  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  30  Minn.  265,  15  N.  W.  237. 

If.  Y,— Security  Trust  Co,  v.  Wells, 
Fargo  &  Co.  Express,  81  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  426,  80  N.  Y.  Supp.  830,  afld. 
178  N.  Y.  620,  70  N.  E.  1109;  Pack- 
ard V.  Gitman,  4  Wend.   (N.  Y.)   613, 

21  Am.  Dec.  166. 

Tenn. — Erie  Despatch  v.  Johnson, 
€7  Tenn.  490,  11  S.  W,  441. 


Tex. — Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Seley, 
31  Tex.  Civ.  App.  158,  72  S.  W.  89. 

W.  Va. — Clarke-Lawrence  Go.  v. 
Chesapeake  &  0.  R.  Co.,  63  W.  Va. 
423,  61  S.  E.  364.  See  also.  Carrier's, 
liability  for  misdelivery,  §  21,  chap.  5. 

A  carrier  of  goods  under  a  special 
contract  fixing  a  conventional  value 
thereon  in  consideration  of  a  reduc- 
tion otf  freight,  but  not  including  a 
loss  by  wrong  delivery,  is  liaWe  for 
their  full  value,  where  it  negligently 
makes  a  wrong  delivery.  Savannah, 
etc.,  R.  Oo.  V.  Sloat,  93  Ga.  803,  20 
S.  E.  219,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  207. 

The  conversion  must  be  alleged  in 
the  complaint  or  declaration.  Oeri- 
tral  R.  Co,  v.  Cooper,  95  Ga.  406,  22 
S,  E.  549,  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N. 
S.  688. 

Where  a  carrier  did  not  notify  the 
consignee  of  the  arrival  of  a  ship- 
ment of  grain,  but  on  the  order  of 
the  (purchaser  thereof  removed  the 
grain  to  another  point,  there  was  a 
conversion  of  the  grain.  National 
Bank  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  135  Mo. 
App.  74,  115  S.  W.  517. 

3.  A.  D.  Blowers  &  Co.  v.  Canadian 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  155  Fed.  935. 

4.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Don- 
nell,  49  Ohio  St.  489,  28  Ohio  L.  J. 


278 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


ject  to  a  bailmeut,  there  must  bo  such  an  intention  of  deviation 
from  the  contract  as  would  be  tantamount  to  an  assertion  of  right 
or  dominion  over  the  property,  inconsistent  with  the  bailor's  rights 
of  ownership.^  Tender  of  goods  to  the  o^\^ler  after  conversion, 
and  his  refusal  to  accept  them,  will  not  cast  on  him  the  loss  if  they 
are  subsequently  stolen,  and  the  motive  by  which  a  party  was  con- 
trolled in  the  conversion  of  property  is  of  no  avail  as  a  defense, 
though  it  may  be  shown  to  prevent  the  recovery  of  exemplary 
damagey.^  A  carrier  is  liable  in  trover  for  goods  delivered  to  the 
consignee  in  violation  of  instructions  from  the  shipper  not  to 
deliver  them  without  a  bill  of  ladingj  A  common  carrier  is  liable 
in  an  action  of  trover  for  the  value  of  goods  delivered  to  a  person 
other  than  the  one  described  in  the  bill  of  lading,  upon  his 
presentation  of  it  without  endorsement,  notwithstanding  the  ex- 
istence of  a  custom  to  deliver  goods  to  any  one  in  possession  of 
the  bill  of  lading.^     The  carrier  must  bear  the  risk  of  delivering 


318,  21  L,  R.  A.  117,  32  N.  E.  476. 
Where  goods  were  wrongfully  de- 
livered by  a  carrier  to  a  steamship 
company  instead  of  to  the  owner,  and 
were  carried  to  another  place,  the 
company,  having  notice  of  the  owner- 
ship, had  no  lien  on  the  goods  for 
freight,  and  on  selling  them  was  lia- 
ble for  conversion;  for,  though  it  was 
the  duty  of  such  company  to  receive 
goods  tendered  to  it  for  shipment  by 
connecting  carriers,  it  was  not  ex- 
empt from  liability  for  goods  shipped 
by  one  without  authority.  Liefert  v. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  57  S.  W.  899.  A  deviation 
from  the  route  called  for  by  the  con- 
tract of  shipment  does  not  constitute 
a  conversion  by  the  carrier,  but  it  ba- 
oomes  an  insurer  of  the  property,  as- 
suming the  risk  of  any  loss  that  may 
occur.    Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Booth 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  39  S.  W.  585. 
5.  Direct    Nav.    Co.    v.     Davidson 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  74  S.  W.  790,  hold- 
ing  that    a   bailee   of    a   boat,    who, 


when  he  had  finished  using  tae  same, 
left  her  in  the  possession  arc  under 
the  dominion  and  control  \.f  the 
owner,  and  never  afterwards  assorted 
any  control,  ownership,  or  rights  tc> 
the  boat,  could  not  be  held  liable  t^'i 
a  conversion  thereof,  although  the  i 
boat  was  not  delivered  to  such  owner 
at  the  place  called  for  by  the  con- 
tract. 

6.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Don- 
nell,  supra. 

7.  Foggan  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  16  N.  Y.  Supp.  25,  40  St.  Rep. 
(N.  Y.)    713. 

8.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bark- 
house,  10  Ala.  543,  13  So.  534.  A 
carrier  is  not  liable  to  a  consignor 
as  for  a  conversion  of  goods  con- 
signed to  the  lattcr's  order,  because 
it  deilivered  the  same  to  the  pur- 
chaser of  the  goods  whom  it  was  di- 
rected to  notify,  without  the  sur- 
render of  the  bill  of  lading  contrary 
to  the  provisions  thereof,  where  the 
purchaaier      subsequently      paid      tha 


CONVERSION   BY   CARRIER. 


279 


the  goods  to  the  person  entitled  to  them  under  the  bill  of  lading 
and  its  endorsements;  and  where  the  bill  directs  delivery  to  the 
vendor's  order,  or  his  assigns,  the  carrier  is  notified  that  he  must 
not  deliver  to  the  consignee  without  the  bill  properly  endorsed  by 
the  consignor,  and  if  he  delivers  otherwise  he  will  be  liable.^  A 
carrier  which  delivers  to  a  shipper  goods  of  which  the  bill  of  lading 
has  been  transferred  to  a  bona  fide  holder  by  the  consignee,  to 
whom  it  was  delivered  by  the  shipper,  is  liable  to  the  holder  for 
a  conversion  of  the  goods.^"  A  failure  to  deliver  to  the  next  con- 
necting carrier  entitled  to  receive  the  consignment  constitutes  a 
conversion."  The  negligence  of  the  consignee  of  goods  to  call  for 
the  same  and  pay  freight,  within  a  reasonable  time  after  they 
reach  their  destination,  wall  not  justify  the  carrier  in  delivering 
the  same  to  an  unauthorized  person,  or  to  a  person  in  violation  of 
the  written  instructions  of  the  owner.^^  A  failure  or  refusal  to 
leliver  goods  to  the  party  entitled  to  delivery,  or  to  return  them 
to  the  shipper,  constitutes  a  conversion  and  renders  the  carrier 
liable."    But  unless  there  is  an  absolute  denial  by  the  carrier  of 


draft  to  which  the  bill  of  lading  was 
attached  to  the  bank  which  held  it 
tor  oolleotion,  although  the  bank 
failed  to  remit  the  proceeds,  and 
?ubsequently  became  iusolvent.  Witt 
V.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99 
Tenn.  442,  41  S.  W.  1064,  8  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  380. 

9.  Grayson  County  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  79  S.  W.  1094. 

Where  bills  of  lading  were  pledged 
to  secure  advances  made  to  the  pur- 
chaser of  the  goods,  and  on  bank- 
ruptcy of  the  purchaser  a  part  of  the 
property  covered  by  the  bills  of  lad- 
ing was  in  possession  of  a  carrier,  its 
refusal  to  deliver  th^e  property  to  the 
pledgee  of  the  bills  of  lading,  except 
on  surrender  thereof,  was  a  conver- 
«ion  of  the  property.  First  Nat. 
Bank  r.  San  Antonio,  etc,  R.  Co. 
<Tex.),  77  S.  W.  410. 


10.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heiden- 
heimer,  82  Tex.  195,  17  S.  W.  608. 

11.  Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Cole,  68  Ga. 
623. 

12.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Herndon,  81  111.  143,  holding  that 
where  parties  shipped  fruit  trees  to 
a  place  to  their  own  address,  as  con- 
signees, the  carrier  was  not  author- 
ized, either  at  common  law  or  by 
statute,  to  place  the  trees  in  the 
hands  of  a  stranger,  with  directions 
to  him  to  sell  enough  of  them  to  pay 
the  charges  of  transportation;  and 
if  it  does  so,  it  will  be  liable  in  tro- 
ver to  the  owners. 

13.  LoefBer  v.  Keokuk,  etc..  Packet 
lOo.,  7  Mo.  App.  185,  a  refusal  to  de- 
liver except  upon  an  unreasonable 
condition  constitutes  a  conversion. 

Trover  against  a  carrier  for  goods 
damaged  during  transportation  will 
lie  without  payment  of  the  freight, 


280 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


the  person's  right  to  a  delivery,  or  the  shipper's  right  to  a  return 
of  the  goods,  or  unless  the  excuses  for  failure  to  deliver  or  return 
are  unreasonable,  inconsistent,  or  made  in  bad  faith,  there  is  no 
conversion  by  the  carrier,  even  on  clear  proof  of  demand  for  the 
goods  and  failure  or  refusal  to  deliver  or  return."  Where  a  sta- 
tion agent  had  reasonable  doubts  as  to  whether  a  charge  for  deten- 
tion of  a  car  containing  plaintiff's  goods  vs^as  lawful,  and  as  to 
whether  the  railroad  company  would  insist  on  payment,  his  re- 
fusal to  deliver  the  goods  to  the  owner  before  obtaining  instruc- 
tions did  not  constitute  a  conversion.^^  The  refusal  by  a  railroad 
company  to  deliver  goods  to  the  owner  after  they  had  been  at- 
tached as  the  property  of  another  did  not  constitute  a  conversion, 


if  at  all,  only  where  the  damages  ex- 
ceed or  equal  the  amount  of  the 
freight.  Miami  Powder  Co.  v.  Port 
Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  S.  C.  78,  16 
S.  E.  339,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Caa.  688, 
20  L.  R.  A.  123. 

The  failure  of  an  express  company 
to  deliver  goods  intrusted  to  it  for 
carriage,  or  to  return  them  on  de- 
mand, because  of  their  loss,  does  not 
constitute  a  conversion  by  it  of  the 
goods.  Goldbowitz  v.  Metropolitan 
Express  Co.,  91  N.  Y.  Supp.  318. 

14.  Rubin  v.  Wells,  Fargo  Ex- 
press Co.,  85  N.  Y.  Supp,  1108. 

Where  a  common  carrier  receives 
merchandise  from  a  consignor  to 
transport,  and  which,  through  delay 
in  reaching  destination,  is  refused  by 
the  consignee,  there  is  no  obligation 
on  the  part  of  the  carrier  to  return 
it  to  the  consignor  unless  ordered  so 
to  do,  and  its  failure  to  so  return  it 
is  not  a  conversion  of  the  goods. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Heilprin,  95 
111.  App.  402. 

Where  goods  were  delivered  to  an 
express  company  for  carriage,  and 
the  consignor,  within  two  jr*onth8 
after  they  were  sent,  refused  to  re- 


ceive them  back  on  the  company's 
tender,  made  because  the  consignees 
could  not  be  found,  an4  the  value  of 
the  goods  at  the  time  of  the  tender 
was  the  same  as  at  the  time  the 
company  received  them,  the  consignor 
cannot  recover  back  the  goods  and 
damages  against  the  company  for 
non-delivery.  Brookstone  v.  West- 
oott  Express  Co.,  29  Misc.  Rep.  (N. 
Y.)  634,  61  N.  Y.  Supp.  72.  See  Ala- 
bama Midland  Ry.  Co.  v.  Darby,  119 
Ala.  531. 

Where  the  party  entitled  to  deliv- 
ery sustains  no  real  damages,  the  re- 
covery should  be  for  only  nominal 
damages.  Hiort  v.  London,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  4  Exoh.  Div.  188,  48  L.  J.  Exch. 
545,  40  L.  T.  674,  27  W.  R.  778. 

15.  Hett  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N. 
H.),  44  Atl.  910;  Robinson  v.  Bur- 
leigh, 5  N.  H.  225;  Fletcher  V. 
Fletcher,  7  N.  H.  452;  Sargent  V. 
Gile,  8  N.  H.  325,  331;  Vaughan  V. 
Watt,  6  M.  &  W.  492;  Hollins  v. 
Fowler,  L.  R.  7  H.  L.  757,  766;  Cush- 
ing  V.  Breck,  10  N.  H.  Ill,  116;  East- 
man V.  Association,  65  N.  H.  176,  18 
Atl.  745,  6  L.  R.  A,  712. 


COm^ERSION  BY  CARRIER. 


281 


•where  the  company  disclaimed  dominion  over  them  by  informing 
him  that  the  goods  were  not  in  its  possession,  but  in  the  custody 
of  the  law.^^  An  initial  carrier  who  transports  goods  delivered 
for  carriage  to  a  wrong  point  where  they  are  delivered  to  a  person 
not  entitled  to  receive  them  is  liable  in  an  action  for  conversion, 
as  well  as  the  last  connecting  carrier  which  made  the  delivery/^ 
Delay  on  the  part  of  a  carrier  in  delivering  goods  is  not  a  con- 
version, no  matter  how  long  continued,  so  as  to  make  it  liable  for 
their  value,  and,  if  the  goods  are  safely  kept,  the  carrier  cannot 
be  charged  with  conversion  until  they  have  been  demanded  of  the 
carrier  and  their  delivery  refused/*  But  a  shipper  who,  after  a 
wrongful  delivery  of  the  goods  by  a  carrier  to  a  third  person, 
agrees  to  wait  lor  their  delivery  until  the  return  of  the  station 
agent,  may  treat  the  goods  as  converted  and  maintain  an  action 
for  their  value,  where  the  carrier  fails  for  seven  days  after  the 
return  of  the  agent  to  recover  and  deliver  the  goods,  and  a  tender 


16.  Hett  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (N. 
H.)  44  Atl.  910;  Fletcher  v.  Fletcher, 
7  N.  H.  452;  Osgood  v.  Carver,  43 
Conn.  24,  30;  Stiles  v.  Davis,  1  Black 
(U.  S.),  101,  17  L.  Ed.  33.  See 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trust  Co.,  107 
Ga.  512;  Thomas  v.  Northern  Pac. 
Express  Co.,  73  Minn.  185;  Coos  Bay, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Siglin,  34  Or.  80. 

17.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Larned,  103  111.  293,  6  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  436. 

An  initial  carrier  whoso  contract 
exempts  it  from  liability  "  for  any- 
thing beyond  its  line,  ...  ex- 
cepting to  protect  the  through  rate 
of  freight  named  therein,"  is  not  lia- 
ble for  a  conversion  because  of  the 
failure  of  the  connecting  carrier  to 
deliver  the  property  at  the  place  of 
destination.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Oo. 
V.  Odom,  63  Ark.  326,  38  S.  W.  339. 

18.  Ryland  &  Rankin  v.  Chesa- 
(peake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (W.  Va.),  46  S. 
E.  923,  also  holding  that  a  carrier  is 
DO*   liable    for   conversion   for   goods 


in  his  possession  while  they  remain 
in  specie,  but  the  shipper  can  only 
recover  the  damages  sustained  by  de- 
lay. See  also.  Liability  for  delay, 
chap.  8. 

Where  a  consignor  having  heard 
nothing  from  the  goods  shipped, 
asked  the  carrier  what  had  become  of 
the  goods,  and  was  told  that  he  did 
not  know,  there  was  no  demand,  so 
as  to  render  the  carrier  guilty  of 
conversion.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Tyler  CofHn  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  81 
S.  W.  826.  Where,  upon  refusal  of 
the  consignee  to  accept  the  goods, 
they  are  stored  by  the  carrier,  and 
upon  a  claim  being  made  for  the 
goods  several  months  afterward,  the 
carrier  informs  the  consignor  of  the 
facts  and  inquires  as  to  what  disposi- 
tion it  shall  make  of  the  goods,  it  is 
liable  only  for  delay  in  sending  notice 
of  the  consignee's  refusal  and  not  for ' 
conversion.  Fishman  v.  Piatt,  90  N. 
Y.  Supp.  354. 


2S2 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


maJe  after  notice  to  the  carrier  of  the  shipper's  election  to  treat 
the  g-oods  as  converted  is  too  Late/*    Where  a  railroad  company 
delivered  a  consignment  of  wheat  to  another  than  the  consignee, 
snbject  to  the  consignor's  order,  such  erroneous  delivery  consti- 
tuted a  technical  conversion,  rendering  the  railroad  company  im- 
mediately liable  for  the  price  of  the  wheat;  so  that  it  was  not  re- 
lieved by  its  subsequent  destruction  in  the  hands  of  such  third 
person  by  an  unprecedented  storm.^"*     Where  a  carrier  delivers 
goods  to  the  person  to  whom  they  are  consigned,  after  notice  by 
the  real  owner  not  to  do  so  except  on  his  written  order,  no  further 
demand  is  necessary  to  entitle  such  owner  to  maintain  an  action 
against  the  carrier  for  conversion.^^     Where  a  carrier  delivers 
goods  at  their  destination,  he  is  not  guilty  of  conversion,  and  the 
shipper  should  receive  the  same  and  sue  for  negligence  or  for 
breach  of  contract  for  their  injured  condition;  and  the  measure 
of  damages  in  either  action  would  be  the  same.^^     Trover  will  lie 
for  the  value  of  property  illegally  withheld  under  an  unlawful 
claim  for  freight  charges,  and  a  demand,  tender,  and  refusal  to 
deliver  constitute  prima  facie  evidence  of  a  conversion.^    Where, 
on  a  dispute  between  a  carrier  and  the  owner  of  certain  goods  as 
to  the  amount  due  for  their  carriage,  the  carrier  withheld  them 
until  the  amount  claimed  by  him  to  be  due  should  be  paid,  a  tender 
was  not  necessary  before  bringing  suit  for  their  conversion,  where 
there  was  no  refusal  by  the  owner  to  pay  what  he  deemed  a  proper 
amount.^*     It  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier  which  has  received  goods 
consigned  to  the  shipper's  order  to  deliver  in  accordance  with  such 
order,  and  a  failure  or  refusal  so  to  do  without  lawful  excuse 
renders  the  carrier  liable  for  conversion,^    A  forwarding  company 

19.  Hamilton  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  for  freight  paid,  where  it  appears 
Oo.  103  Iowa,  335,  72  N.  W.  536,  8  that  he  at  the  time  owed  the  owner 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  526.  of  the  goods  a  larger  sum. 

20.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Seley,  22.  Redmon  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
31  Tex.  Civ.  App.  158,  72  S.  W.  89.  Co.,  90  Mo.  App.  68. 

21.  Lester  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  23.  Beasley  v.  Baltimore  &  P.  R. 
Co.,  92  Hun    (N.  Y.),  342,  36  N.  Y.  Co.,  27  App.  D.  C.  595. 

Supp.   907,   where  the  consignee  had  24.  Gates  v.  Bekins,  44  Wash.  422, 

been   plaintiff's  agent   and   the  goods  87  Pac.  505. 

were    delivered   after    termination   of  25.  Atchison,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Sch- 

the  at^ency  and  notice  by  the  owner  river,  72  Kan.  550,  84  Pac.  119,  4  L. 

not  to   do  so,   it   is   no   defense  that  R.  A.   (N.  S.)   1056. 

such  person  had  a  lien  on  the  goods 


CONVERSION   BY   CARRIER.  283 

contracting  to  forward  goods  without  prepayments  of  charges  is 
liable  for  breach  of  contract,  where  its  agent  at  an  intermediate 
point  refuses  to  forward  the  goods  without  the  charges  being  pre- 
paid, regardless  of  whether  the  company  is  a  mere  forwarder  and 
not  a  common  carrier,  and  if  the  forwarding  company  knew  the 
place  of  residence  of  the  consignee  and  its  agent  refused  to  deliver 
the  goods,  no  demand  was  necessary  to  render  the  company  liable 
for  conversion.^®  The  forcible  removal  of  parcels  from  a  passenger 
whose  ticket  does  not  entitle  him  to  carry  them,  and  the  transfer 
of  them  to  an  express  car,  with  orders  to  carry  them  onward,  con- 
stitute a  conversion.^^  That  a  railway  company's  act  in  appro- 
priating to  its  own  use  coal  belonging  to  a  consignee  was  through 
an  honest  mistake,  does  not  affect  the  consignee's  right  to  redress 
for  the  conversion.^  Trover  will  lie  against  a  common  carrier 
for  misdelivery,  or  an  appropriation  of  the  property  to  its  or  his 
own  use,  or  for  any  act  or  dominion  of  ownership  antagonistic  to 
and  inconsistent  with  plaintiff's  claim  or  right ;  but  not  for  goods 
lost  by  accident  or  stolen,  or  for  nondelivery,  unless  there  be  a 
refusal  to  deliver  while  the  carrier  is  in  possession;  nor  for  any 
act  or  omission  which  amounts  to  negligence  merely,  and  not  to  an 
actual  wrong.^*  Where  the  owner  and  consignee  of  freight  is  at 
thQ  depot  when  his  goods  arrive  and  demands  them,  and  is  refused, 
nr/d  the  goods  are  reshipped  to  some  other  destination,  and  the 
/arrier  refuses  to  pay  for  them,  the  owner  may  sue  for  conversion.^" 
Where  a  carrier,  without  hire,  agrees  to  deliver  a  package  safely, 
and  fails  to  do  so,  trover  will  only  lie  in  case  of  an  actual  con- 


§  2.  Receiving  goods  from  one  in  possession  not  conversion. 

A  common  carrier  must  accept  freight  from  every  one  offering 
the  same,  and  is  not  liable  for  conversion  to  the  true  owner  in 

26.  Lee     r.     Fidelity     Storage     k  28.  Frazier  v  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co^ 
Transfer  Co.,  51  Wash.  208,  98  Pac.  104  Mo.  App.  355,  78  S.  VV.  679. 
(J53_  29.  Central   R.,   etc.,   Co.  v.  Lamp- 

27.  Bullock    v.    Delaware,    etc.,    R.  ley,  76  Ala.  357,  52  Am.  Rep.  334. 
Co.,  60  N.  J.  Law.  24,  36  Atl.  773,  7  30.  St.  Louis  4;  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Dun- 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Caa.  N.  S.  370,  37  L.  ham,  —  Old.  — ,  129  Pac.  862. 

R.  A.  417.  ^^'  Delaware    Bank    v.     Smith,    X 

Edm.  Sel.  Gas.  (N.  Y.)   351. 


2 Si  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

accepting  freight  from  a  party  apparently  rightfully  in  possession 
thereof,  unless  the  true  owner  intervenes  before  the  goods  are  de- 
livered and  demands  them,*^  and  gives  notice  of  his  right  to  the 
property  and  his  intention  to  enforce  it,  though  the  shipper  had 
no  right  to  possession  in  fact.'^  A  carrier  is  not  guilty  of  conver- 
sion where  he,  in  good  faith,  takes  goods  from  the  possession  of 
the  owTier  by  direction  of  another  having  apparent  control  of  the 
goods  and  the  present  capacity  of  investing  himself  with  actual  pos- 
session, and  delivers  them  to  such  other  person  in  another  place.^* 
Where  the  conditions  of  a  valid  chattel  mortgage  have  been  broken, 
and  the  mortgagee  is  entitled  to  possession,  a  common  carrier  is 
not  liable  to  the  mortgagor  for  a  diversion  of  the  shipment  of  such 
property  and  delivery  to  the  mortgagee,  demanding  possession, 
while  it  is  still  in  the  carrier's  hands.^  Where  a  carrier  received 
railroad  iron  for  transportation  in  good  faith,  without  knowledge 
that  it  was  the  carrier's  own  property,  and  thereafter  discovered 
such  fact,  the  carrier  could  avail  itself  thereof  as  a  defense  to  an 
action  for  conversion.^® 

§  3.  Carrier  not  liable  in  conversion  for  mere  non-feasance. 

The  general  rule  is  that  a  carrier  is  not  liable  in  conversion  for 
mere  non-feasance,   although   he  may   be   liable   for  negligence. 

32.  Robert  0.  White  Live  Stock  the  wrongful  possessor  after  notice  of 
Commission  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  the  claim  of  the  true  owner.  Loring 
87  Mo.  App.  330.  v.    Mulcahy,    3    Allen    (Mass.),    575; 

33.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Shell-  Metealf  v.  McLaughlin,  122  Mass. 
nut,  131  Ga.  404,  18  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  84." 

494,  62  S.  E.  294.  A     common    carrier    who     receives 

34.  Gurley  v.  Armstead,  148  Mass.  goods  to  carry  from  one  not  author- 
267,  19  N.  E.  389,  2  L.  R.  A.  80,  ized  to  deliver  them  to  him,  is  a  tres- 
wherein  the  court  said:  "It  is  con-  passer,  and  may  be  sued  in  trover  for 
ceded  that  whoever  receives  goods  the  goods,  as  any  other  illegal  taker 
from  one  in  actual,  though  illegal,  may  be.  Southern  Express  Co.  v. 
possession    thereof,    and    restores   the  Palmer,  48  Ga.  85. 

goods   to   such    person,   is   not   liable  35.  Johnston    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

for  a  conversion  by  reason  of  having  Co.,  70  Neb.  334,  97  N.  W.  479. 

transported  them;   Strickland  v.  Bar-  36.  Valentine    v.    Long    Island    R. 

rett,  20  Pick.    (Mass.)    415;   Leonard  Co.,  187  N.  Y.  121,  79  N.  E.  849,  revg. 

V.  Tidd,  3  Mete.  (Ma«s.)  6.    And  this  102  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   419,  92  N.  Y. 

would  be  so  apparently,  even  if  the  Supp.  645. 
goods  thus  received  were  restored  to 


CONVERSION  BY  CARRIER. 


285 


Thus,  trover  will  not  lie  for  the  mere  omission  of  the  carrier;  as, 
where  the  property  has  been  lost  or  stolen  through  his  negligence 
and  so  cannot  be  delivered  to  the  owner,  and  the  inability  to  de- 
liver does  not  arise  from  any  act  of  the  carrier."  Mere  non-delivery 
by  a  conmion  carrier  will  not  constitute  a  conversion,  nor  will  a 
refusal  to  deliver,  on  demand,  if  the  goods  have  been  lost  through 
negligence,  or  have  been  stolen.  A  conversion  implies  a  wrong- 
ful act,  a  misdelivery,  a  wrongful  disposition  or  withholding  of 
property.  There  must  be  proof  of  a  wrongful  disposition  or 
wrongful  withholding.^^     If,  at  the  time  of  the  demand  a  reason- 


37.  Wamsley  v.  Atlas  Steamship 
Co.,  168  N.  Y.  533,  61  N.  E.  896, 
revg.  50  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  199,  63  N. 
Y.  Supp.  761;  Hawkins  v.  Hoffman,  6 
Hill  (N.  Y.),  588,  41  Am.  Dec.  767; 
Packard  v.  Getman,  4  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
615,  21  Am.  Dec.  166;  Briggs  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
515;  Gillet  v.  Roberts,  57  N.  Y.  28; 
Richards  v.  Pitts  Agricultural  Works, 
37  Hun  (N,  Y.),  1;  Parmenter  v. 
American  Box  Machine  Co.,  162  N. 
Y.  648,  affg.  44  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
47;  Spooner  v.  Manchester,  133  Mass. 
270;  Pacific  Express  Co.  v.  Shearer, 
160  111.  215,  43  N.  E.  816,  43  Cent. 
L.  J.  35;  Bowlin  v.  Nye,  64  Mass.  (10 
Cush.)   416. 

A  steamship  company  is  not  liable 
in  action  of  conversion  for  the  value 
of  a  package  delivered  to  it  by  a 
passenger  on  one  of  its  steamships 
and  placed  in  the  storeroom  by  one 
of  its  servants,  and  which  could  not 
be  found  prior  to  the  commencement 
of  the  action,  where,  although  sub- 
sequently found  on  the  vessel  in 
circumstances  raising  a  presumption 
that  it  had  not  been  removed  there- 
from, there  is  no  evidence  showing 
the  circumstances  of  its  removal  from 
the  storeroom,  and  it  may  have  been 
stolen  by  a  fellow  passenger  or  have 
been  removed  and  misplaced  by  some 


one  for  whose  acts  the  defendant  was 
not  responsible,  in  an  action  for  con- 
version, although  possibly  liable  for 
negligence;  and  the  refusal  of  the 
court  to  charge  that  "  in  such  case 
the  carrier  can  only  be  made  liable 
upon  proof  of  actual  conversion "  is 
reversible  error.  Wamsley  v.  Atlas 
Steamship  Co.,  168  N.  Y.  533,  61  N. 
E.  896,  revg.  50  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
199,   63  N.  Y.  Supp.  761. 

38.  Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  70  N.  Y. 
410,  26  Am.  Rep,  608,  affg.  40  N.  Y. 
Super.  Ct.  512,  42  Id.  16;  Soovill  v. 
Griffith,  12  N.  Y.  509;  Rosenfeld  v. 
Central  Vermont  R.  Co.,  Ill  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  371,  97  N.  Y.  Supp.  905. 

A  railroad  company  properly  re- 
fuses to  deliver  property  consigned 
to  designated  persons  to  another  per- 
son, although  the  latter  is  the  real 
owner,  where  he  has  the  power  to 
produce  evidence  of  his  authority  to 
receive  such  property  and  fails  to 
produce  it,  and  the  company  does  not 
know  that  he  is  the  owner.  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Fowler,  12  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  683,  34  S,  W.  661. 

An  express  company  is  not  liable 
in  trover  for  failure  to  deliver  a 
trunk  on  demand,  where  prior  to  de- 
mand the  trunk  has  been  desftroyed 
by  fire.  Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Sin- 
clair, 130  Ga.  372,  60  S.  E.  849. 


2SG  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERiS. 

able  excuse  be  made  in  good  faith  for  the  non-delivery,  the  goods 
being  evidently  kept  with  a  view  to  deliver  them  to  the  true  owner, 
there  is  no  conversion.^^    Where  goods  are  sent  by  a  sealed  railroad 
car  to  be  delivered  unbroken  at  the  place  of  destination,  if  the 
goods  are  removed  for  the  convenience  of  the  carrier,  and  are  after- 
wards delivered  without  loss  of  quantity  and  without  injury,  the 
carrier  is  not  liable  in  trover/'*    A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  the  con- 
version of  goods  which,  because  of  packages  being  broken  before 
delivery  to  the  consignee,  he  refused  to  receive,  because  the  agent 
caused  the  goods  all  to  be  unpacked  and  inventoried,  in  order  to 
ascertain  their  character  and  condition,  and  then  repacked  them/^ 
Where  part  of  a  consignment  of  goods  is  damaged  in  the  trans- 
portation but  capable  of  being  repaired  and  the  consignee  refuses 
to  receive  them,  the  carrier  is  not  liable  as  for  a  conversion  of  such 
damaged  goods/^     Where  a  suit  of  clothes  is  manufactured  to 
order,  to  be  inspected  by  the  purchaser  before  acceptance,  and  the 
carrier  tenders  ,the  goods,  and  the  consignee  refuses  to  accept  them, 
but  states  that  he  will  shortly  call  for  them,  and  the  carrier  stores 
them  for  several  weeks,   when   the   consignee   absolutely  rejects 
them,  and  the  consignor  refuses  to  order  their  return,  on  being 
informed  of  the  rejection,  on  the  ground  that  they  are  no  longer 
of  any  use  to  him,  the  consignor  cannot  recover  of  the  carrier  for 
conversion.*'     Where  a  shipper  delivered  goods  to  a  carrier,  for 
delivery  to  a  person  named  as  consignee  in  a  non-negotiable  ship- 
ping receipt,  and  the  shipper  drew  on  the  consignee  for  the  price 
and  attached  the  draft  to  the  receipt;  subsequently  the  carrier, 
at  the  shipper's  request,  delivered  the  goods  to  a  third  person; 
thereafter  the  consignee  accepted  the  draft  and  paid  it,  it  was 
held  that  the  consignee  had  not  acquired  any  title  to  the  goods, 
and  could  not  sue  the  carrier  for  conversion.**     Where  a  carrier 
tenders  the  goods  to  the  consignee,  and  the  latter  denies  ownership 

39.  McEntee  v.  New  Jersey  Steam-  42.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
boat  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  35,  6  Am.  Rep.  28;  son,  53  Ark.  283,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Rome  R.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  14  Ga.  277 ;       Cas.   381. 

The  Hattie  Palmer,   63   Fed.   1015.  43.  Levy   v.    Weir,    38    Misc.    Rep. 

40.  Tucker   v.    Housatonic   R.   C5o.,       (N.  Y.)  361,  77  N.  Y.  Supp.  917. 

39  Conn.  447.  *4-  Green  v.  Baltimore  &  I.  R.  Co., 

41.  Silverman    v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,      206  Mass.  331,  92  N.  E.  622. 
E,  Co.,  51  La.  Ann.  1785,  26  So.  447. 


ACTIONS  AGAINST  CARRIER.  287 

or  obligation  to  receive  the  same,  and  the  carrier,  in  reliance  on 
Buch  denial,  returns  the  goods  to  the  shipper  on  the  latter's  order, 
the  consignee  is  estopped  to  sue  the  carrier  for  conversion/^  A 
refusal  to  deliver  goods,  where  they  are  retained  by  virtue  of  the 
carrier's  lien  for  charges  of  transportation,  does  not  constitute  a 
conversion."  The  rule  that  a  consignee  must  pay  or  tender  to  a 
carrier  the  legal  charges  for  transportation  in  order  to  entitle  him 
to  the  possession  of  his  goods,  or  to  sustain  an  action  for  failure 
or  refusal  of  the  carrier  to  deliver  the  goods,"  has  no  application 
in  an  action  for  the  conversion  of  the  goods.**  The  mere  intent 
on  the  part  of  a  carrier,  prior  to  delivery,  to  collect  exorbitant 
charges  for  the  carriage  of  goods,  does  not  constitute  conversion, 
there  being  no  evidence  of  an  intent  to  retain  the  goods  in  case  of 
nonpayment." 

§  4.  Actions  for  loss  or  injury. — Nature  and  form  of  action. 

In  suits  against  common  carriers  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods, 
plaintiff  may  declare  in  case  or  assumpsit  at  his  election.^"  Where 
the  carrier  lost  part  of  the  goods,  and  sold  the  balance  at  the  point 
of  destination,  assumpsit  is  the  proper  form  of  action  for  the 
shipper  to  bring  to  recover  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  from  the  car- 
rier.^^  Where  defendant  received  for  transportation  certain  bars 
of  iron,  and,  while  on  the  road^  his  vehicle  broke  down,  and  the 
iron  was  left  on  the  highway  over  night,  and  on  arrival  at  his 
destination,  it  was  discovered  that  two  bars  of  the  iron  were  miss- 
ing, an  action  of  trover  would  not  lie  against  the  carrier,  but  the 
shipper's  action  was  on  the  contract.^^     A  suit  for  two  bales  of 

45.  Stafsky  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  —  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Perialiow, 
Ala.  — ,   39  So.   132.  61  111.  App.  179. 

46.  See  Carrier's  lien  for  charges,  48.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Don- 
chap.  16.  nell,  49  Ohio  St.  489,  28  Ohio  L.  J. 

47.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  John-  318,  32  N".  E.  476,  21  L.  R.  A.  117. 
eon,  53  Ark.  282,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  49.  Manda  v.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co., 
Cas.   381:    Hender-wn   v.  Three  Hun-  47  N.  Y.  Supp.  182,  21  Misc.  Rep.  308. 
dred  Tons  of  Iron   Ore,   38   Fed.  38;  50.  Mershon    v.    Hobensaxik,    22   N. 
White    V.    Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co.,    6  J.  Law  (2  Zab.),  372. 

Manitoba  L.  R.  169.  51.  Stevens   v.   Sayward,    69   Mass. 

A  shipper  is  not  bound  to  prepay  (3  Gray)    108. 

charges  in  order  to  maintain  an  a,c-  52.  Moses  v.  Norris,  4  N.  H.  304. 

tion     for    failure     to     furnish     cars.  I 


288  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

cotton  alleged  to  have  been  lost  by  a  carrier  out  of  shipments 
covering  a  season  cannot  be  maintained  as  a  suit  on  special  con- 
tract for  a  particular  shipment,  where  the  allegation  as  to  the  loss 
is  general,  and  it  cannot  be  shown  out  of  which  shipment  the  loss 
occurred.^  Where  a  carrier  delivers  the  goods  at  their  destination, 
he  is  not  guilty  of  conversion,  and  the  shipper  should  receive  the 
same  and  sue  for  negligence  or  for  breach  of  contract  for  their 
injured  condition;  and  the  measure  of  damages  in  either  action 
would  be  the  same."  A  shipper  whose  goods  are  lost  during  transit 
may  sue  in  tort  for  a  breach  of  the  common-law  duty  of  the  car- 
rier to  deliver,  which  originates  at  the  place  of  delivery,  or  he  may 
sue  for  breach  of  the  contract  of  transportation,  or  he  may  treat 
the  carrier  as  a  bailee  and  allege  the  specific  tortious  act  by  which 
the  goods  weer  lost,  and  found  his  right  to  recover  thereon,  which 
originates  at  the  place  where  the  tortious  act  occurred.^^  An  action 
will  be  presumed  to  be  upon  a  carrier's  common-law  liability,  and 
not  under  the  Civil  Code,  where  the  essential  allegation  to  statu- 
tory liability,  that  the  goods  were  received  "  in  good  order,"  or 
"  as  in  good  order,"  is  not  made.^^  Unless  the  property  shipped 
is  totally  destroyed  or  converted,  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  its 
full  value  as  for  conversion,  but  the  remedy  is  an  action  for  in- 
juries to  the  property  as  for  breach  of  the  contract  of  carriage.^^ 
An  action  of  trespass  may  be  maintained  against  a  common  carrier 
for  negligence  in  transporting  goods,  although  a  contract  may  have 
been  entered  into  between  the  shipper  and  the  carrier.^*     Where 

53.  Illinois   Cent.  R.   Co.   v.  Gross,  nature  or  the  situs   of  the  cause  of 
—  Miss.  — ,  22  So.  946.  action;  and,  where  the  defensive  mat- 

54.  Redmon  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  ter    is    met    by    proof   of    concurring 
90  Mo.  App.  68.  negligence,    the    cause    rests    on    the 

55.  Merritt  Creamery  Oo.  v.  Atchi-  failure  of  the  carrier  to   deliver  the 
son,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  128  Mo.  App.  420,  goods  at  their  destination.     Id. 

107  S.  W.  462.  56.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Oo.  v.  Jones^ 

The  rule  that,  where  a  carrier  sued  7  Ga.  App.  165,  66  S.  E.  492. 
for  the  loss  of  goods  during  transit  57.  Parsons   v.    United    States   Ex- 
sustains  the  burden  of  showing  that  press  Co.,  144  Iowa,  745,  123  N.  W. 
the  loss  was  the  result  of  an  ax;t  of  776. 

God,  the  burden  of  proving  that  the  58.  Howard    v.    American    Express 

carrier  was  guilty  of  negligence  con-  Co.,  47  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  416;   Soloman 

tributing  to  the  loss  is  on  the  shipper,  v.  Adams  Express  Oo.,  47  Pa.  Super, 

goes  only  to  a  matter  of  defense,  and  Ct.  423. 
does  not  operate  to  change  either  the 


ACTIONS  AGAINST  CARRIER.  289 

goods,  though  injured  by  a  carrier,  retain  a  substantial  value,  the 
owner  cannot  refuse  to  take  them,  and  sue  the  carrier  for  their 
entire  value;  but  can  recover  only  for  the  diminution  in  value.^' 
Where  property  is  injured  in  transportation  through  the  negligence 
of  the  carrier,  the  owner  cannot  refuse  to  accept  it,  and  sue  for  its 
market  value,  but  may  recover  only  for  the  injury.®"  In  all  actions 
on  the  case,  against  a  carrier  for  a  loss  or  injury  done  to  property, 
the  wrong  is  the  gist  of  the  action,  and  the  contract  collateral 
thereto ;  but,  in  all  actions  of  assumpsit  against  a  carrier,  the  con- 
tract to  deliver  is  the  gist  of  the  action.®^  Where,  by  special  con- 
tract between  the  carrier  and  the  shipper  of  live  stock,  the  relation 
is  changed  from  that  of  common  carrier,  an  action  to  recover  for 
damage  to  the  stock  must  be  brought  on  the  contract,  and  not 
against  defendant  as  a  common  carrier.^ 

§  5.  Actions  for  loss  or  injury. — Actions  ex  contractu  or  ex 
delicto. 
The  liabilities  of  a  carrier  depend  not  only  on  his  contract,  but 
also  on  obligations  imposed  by  law ;  and  an  action  may  be  brought 
either  on  the  contract  or  for  negligence  or  damage  to  person  or 
property,  as  the  case  may  be.^  A  shipper  may  at  his  election 
maintain  assumpsit  or  an  action  in  tort  for  goods  lost  by  a  common 
carrier."  Where  there  is  a  special  contract  varying  the  common- 
law  liability  of  the  carrier,  the  action  is  properly  brought  on  the 
special  contract,  and  not  on  the  common-law  liability.^  Where 
a  common  carrier,  by  contract,  limits  its  liability  for  damages  not 
caused  by  its  negligence,  the  owner  of  goods  destroyed  in  transit 
by  fire  must  sue  on  the  contract,  and  not  on  the  common-law  lia- 
bility.®^    Where,  through  the  negligence  of  the  ferryman  to  pro- 

59.  McGrath  v.  Charleston  &  W,  C.  63.  Central     Trust     Co.     v.     East 
Ry.  Co.,  91  S.  C.  552,  75  S.  E.  44.  Tennessee,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  70  Fed.  764. 

60.  Gulf,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Everett  &  64.  Catlin    v.    Adirondack    Co.,    81 
Long  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  83  S.  W.  257;  N.  Y.  639,  11  Abb.  N.  C.  377. 

Gulf,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  H.  B.  Pitts  &  65.  Boaz  v.  Central   Ry.,  etc.,  Ox, 

Son    (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  83  S.  W.  727.  87  Ga.  463,  13  S.  E.  711. 

61.  Carter  v.  Graves,   17  Tenn.    (9  66.  Indianapolis,    etc.,    Ry.    Co.    v. 
Yer^.)   446.  Forsythe,  4  Ind.  App.  326,  29  N.  E. 

62.  Kimball  v.  Rutland  &  B.  R.  Co.,  1138. 
26  Vt.  247,  62  Am.  Dec.  567. 


290  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

vide  a  suitable  landing  stage,  plaintiff's  team  fell  into  a  stream, 
and  was  lost,  plaintiff  may  sue  the  ferryman  on  his  contract  as 
carrier  or  in  tort."  Generally  damages  for  delay  in  shipment  or 
loss  of  property  while  in  a  carrier's  custody  may  be  recovered 
either  in  an  action  ex  contractu  or  one  ex  delicto  at  the  option  of 
the  pleader.**  It  is  immaterial  to  a  carrier  whether  an  action  to 
recover  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  freight  be  upon  contract  or  in  tort, 
so  that  the  allegations  are  sufficient  to  show  a  cause  of  action.*' 

§  6.  Actions  for  loss  or  injury. — Rights  of  action. 

The  owner  of  goods  injured  by  a  carrier  may  sue  the  carrier 
for  their  loss  or  injury,  though  he  has  no  contract  with  the  carrier 
for  the  carriage,  on  the  ground  that  the  carrier  has  the  goods  law- 
fully in  his  possession,  and  has  become  obligated  to  carry  them 
safely  and  deliver  them  to  the  consignee,  subject  only  to  a  lien  for 
his  charges,  so  that  a  wrongful  failure  or  refusal  to  do  so  is  a  tort.™ 
A  cause  of  action  against  a  carrier  for  damages  to  goods  in  transit 
accrues  when  the  goods  are  delivered  in  a  damaged  condition." 
Where  the  loss  of  government  property  caused  by  the  wreck  of  a 
train  was  without  fault  on  the  part  of  the  government  or  its 
officers  and  is  not  shown  to  have  come  within  the  recognized  rules 
which  exempt  the  carrier  from  liability,  the  government  may 
recover  the  value  of  the  property  lost  or  destroyed.''^  Where  a 
railroad  company  refused  to  deliver  a  car  load  of  fruit  to  the  owner 
for  the  specific  reason  that  he  would  not  pay  the  amount  of  the 
freight  demanded,  which  was  in  excess  of  that  due  and  offered  by 
the  owner,  and  the  fruit  was  injured  by  being  frozen  before  the 

67.  Smith  v.  Seward,  3  Pa.  St.  (3  Post  Pipe  Co.  v.  Mobile  4  0.  R.  Co., 
Barr.)  342.  137  Mo.  App.  479,  119  S.  W.  1. 

68.  Wernick  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  69.  Kansas  City  Southern  Ry.  Co. 
R.  Co.,  131  Mo.  App.  37,  109  S.  W.  v.  Rosebrook-Josey  Grain  Co.  (Tex. 
1027.  Civ.   App.),   114   S.   W.   436. 

A   shipper,   whose   goods   are   dam-  70.  Schlosser    v.    Great     Northern 

aged    while   being   transported    by   a  Ry.  Co.,  20  N.  D.  406.  127  N.  W.  502. 

carrier,   has   the   choice   of   declaring  71.  St.    Louis    S.    W.    Ry,    Co.    v. 

either   in   assumpsit  on  the  contract  Phoenix  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  88  Ark.  594, 

or  in  tort  for  breach  of  duty  imposed  115  S.  W.  393. 

by  law  to  carry  safely.     Blackmer  di  72.  Florida   Cent.   &  P.  R.   Co.  v. 

United  States,  43  Ct.  CI.  (U.  S.)  572. 


ACTIONS  AGAINST  CARRIER.  291, 

railroad  company  discovered  its  error,  the  fact  that  at  the  time 
he  demanded  the  goods  the  bill  of  lading  had  not  been  transferred 
to  the  owner  by  the  bank  to  which  the  goods  were  consigned  was 
not  fatal  to  his  right  to  recover  for  the  injury  to  the  fruit.''^  Where 
the  carrier  lost  part  of  the  goods,  and  sold  the  balance  at  the  point 
of  destination,  no  demand  on  him  for  the  proceeds  is  necessary 
to  enable  the  shipper  to  maintain  an  action  therefor,  though,  if 
it  were,  the  commencement  by  the  carrier  of  an  action  for  a  balance 
of  freight,  being  equivalent  to  a  refusal  to  account  for  the  proceeds, 
gave  the  shipper  an  immediate  right  of  action.'^*  Where  State 
bonds  intrusted  to  an  express  company  for  delivery  are  lost  through 
its  negligence,  the  o^vner  may  recover  their  value  without  stating 
in  the  complaint,  and  without  having  furnished  to  the  company 
as  a  condition  precedent,  the  numbers  or  dates  of  the  bonds ;  there 
being  no  rule  of  the  company  requiring  it.'°  An  action  may  be 
maintained  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of  goods  without  proof  of 
demand  at  the  place  of  destination,  when  the  evidence  shows  that 
the  goods  never  reached  the  destination/* 

i 

§  7.  Actions  for  loss  or  injury. — Payment  of  freight. 

In  an  action  for  loss  of  goods,  payment  or  tender  of  freight 
need  not  be  proved."  The  owner  of  goods  shipped,  part  of  which 
are  lost  or  destroyed  by  neglect  of  the  carrier,  may  maintain  an 
action  against  him  for  the  value  of  the  goods  lost,  without  previous 
payment  or  tender  of  freight,  if  he  has  received  the  remainder  of 
the  goods  with  the  carrier's  consent."^*  It  is  the  duty  of  a  con- 
signee whose  property  is  injured  while  in  the  control  of  a  carrier 
to  pay  all  freight  charges,  and  then  sue  the  carrier  for  the  injury 
done.^*    In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  damages  to  goods  ship- 

73.  CI  egg  V.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  135  75.  Martin    v.    American    E.xpress 
N.  C.  148,  47  S.  E.  667,  65  L.  R.  A.      Co.,  19  Wis.  336. 

717.  76.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Meyer, 

Right  of  owner  of  goods  to  recover  78  Ala.  597. 

damages  from  carrier,  though  not  the  77.  Ferguson  v.  Cappeau,  6  Har.  &. 

shipper.     See  Harvey  v.  Terre  Haute  J.   (Md.)    394. 

&  I.   R.  Co.,   6  Mo.  App.   585,  mem-  78.  Alden  v.  Pearson,  69  Mass.    (3 

orandum.  Gray)    342. 

74.  Stevens  v.  Sayward,  69  Mass.  79.  Miami  Powder  Co.  v.  Port 
!<3  Gray)    108.  Royal  &  W.  C.  Ry.  Co.,  38  S.  C.  78, 

16  S.  E.  339,  21  L.  R.  A.  123. 


292  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

ped  over  defendant's  road,  where  the  damages  are  equal  to  or 
exceed  the  amount  of  the  freight  charges,  it  is  not  necessary  that 
the  plaintiff  should  allege  or  prove  that  he  had  paid  or  tendered 
the  amount  due  for  freight.*"  Where  the  consignor  delivers  to  a 
carrier,  at  the  usual  place  of  shipment,  a  quantity  of  hay,  the  fact 
that  consignor  had  not  paid  or  tendered  the  freight  charges  on 
such  hay,  in  the  absence  of  demand  for  prepayment,  does  not  ab- 
solve the  company  from  liability  as  carrier  for  damages  thereto, 
since  the  usual  custom  is  to  collect  the  freight  on  delivery  to  the 
consignee,  thereby  vt^aiving  the  right  to  prepayment.*^  Where 
plaintiff  delivered  to  defendant  1,700  pounds  of  rags  securely 
tied  in  sacks  but  at  the  destination  the  company  offered  to  deliver 
but  500  pounds  of  rags  which  were  lying  loose  outside  its  depot, 
which  plaintiff  refused,  in  an  action  to  recover  for  the  value  of 
the  rags,  there  was  not  a  sufficient  tender  of  part  of  the  freight  to 
reduce  defendant's  liability  to  the  value  of  the  freight  not 
tendered.*^ 

§  8.  Custody  and  control  of  goods. — Rights  of  carrier. — Action 
by  carrier  against  third  person. 
Since  a  common  carrier  is  a  bailee  for  hire,  it  may  resort  to 
any  means  to  protect  the  property  that  the  owner  could  use,  and 
may  recover  the  full  value  from  one  who  destroys  it,  though  the 
owner  might  also  have  an  action.*^  Since  a  common  carrier  is  not 
absolved  from  liability  to  the  owner  of  the  goods  by  the  torts  of 
third  persons,  the  carrier  can  sue  for  the  wrong,  a  recovery  by  him 
being  a  bar  to  a  subsequent  action  by  the  owner  for  the  same 
injury.**  A  railroad  having  on  its  tracks  a  car  of  goods  to  be  trans- 
ferred to  another  road  is  a  bailee,  and  may  maintain  an  action 
for  injury  thereto.*^  Where  a  carrier  who  by  mistake  delivered 
cotton  to  a  stranger  had  the  right  to  sue  in  its  own  name  in  trover, 

80.  Miami     Powder     Ck).     v.     Port  83.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  Ry.  Ck).  v.  City 
Royal  &  W.  C.  Ry.  Co.,  supra.  of    Chicago,    242    111.    178,    89   N.    E. 

81.  Evansville   &   T.   H.   R.   Co.    v.  1022,  aflFg.  judg.  144  111.  App.  293. 
Keith,  8  Ind.  App.  57,  35  N.  E.  296.  84.  The     Farmer     v.    McCraw,    26 

82.  Chicago  &  R.  I.  R.  Co.  v.  War-  Ala.  189,  62  Am.  Dec.  718. 

ren,  16  111.  (6  Peck)  502,  63  Am.  Dec.  85.  Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Kansas 

317.  City  Suburban  Belt  Line  R.  Co.,  78 

Mo.  App.  245. 


ACTIONS  AGAINST  CAHRIER.  293 

it  could  waive  the  tort  and  sue  for  value,  without  averment  and 
proof  of  an  assignment  to  it  by  the  consignor  of  his  interest.^' 
After  a  shipper  of  goods  consigned  to  shipper's  order  has  elected 
to  treat  the  property  as  converted  on  account  of  the  carrier's 
wrongful  refusal  to  deliver  according  to  his  order,  and  has  notified 
the  carrier  of  such  election,  he  is  under  no  obligation  to  defend 
suits  relating  to  the  property  or  to  aid  the  carrier  in  disposing 
of  it."  Where  defendant  ordered  a  car  of  corn  through  a  broker, 
who  ordered  it  from  H.,  who  shipped  the  corn,  consigning  it  to 
himself ;  when  the  car  had  been  placed  on  the  switch  at  its  destina- 
tion, the  broker  opened  the  car  and  delivered  the  corn  to  defendant, 
who  paid  the  broker  for  it;  thereafter  the  railroad  paid  H.  for 
the  corn,  the  broker  refusing  to  do  so,  and  the  railroad  then  sued 
defendant  for  conversion,  the  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  maintain 
the  action.**  If  a  person  not  the  owner  of  property  or  entitled  to 
its  possession  delivers  it  to  a  railroad  for  shipment,  the  true  owner, 
who  is  no  party  to  the  contract,  may,  before  delivery  by  the  carrier, 
demand  and  reclaim  his  property,  and,  as  against  an  action  of 
trover  brought  for  that  purpose  against  the  carrier  by  the  true 
owner,  it  furnishes  no  defense  that  the  carrier  refused  to  recognize 
his  title  or  right,  and  carried  and  delivered  the  property  in  accord- 
ance with  the  shipment.*' 

§  9.  Actions  for  loss  or  injury. — Parties. 

Shippers  who  are  in  control  of  merchandise  shipped,  and  are 
both  consignors  and  consignees,  should  be  assumed,  in  the  absence 
of  evidence  to  the  contrary  to  have  sufficient  title  to  enable  them 
to  maintain  an  action  against  the  carrier.  The  merchandise  being 
whale  oil,  the  product  of  a  whaling  voyage,  evidence  that  seamen 
on  the  whaling  vessel  "  were  interested  in  the  oil  "  is  not  sufficient 
to  establish  that  they  are  partners  or  joint  owners,  so  as  to  require 
them  to  be  joined  as  plaintiffs.^     A  consignor  of  goods  to  whom 

86.  Johnson,  Nesbitt  &  C5o.  v.  Gulf  88.  Fordyce  &  Swanson  v.  Demp- 
&  Chicago  R.  Co.,  82  Miss.  452,  34  sey  &  Beasley,  72  Ark.  471,  82  S.  W. 
So.  357.  493. 

87.  Atchison,  etc.,  Ey.  Co.  v.  Sch-  89.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Haas, 
river,  72  Kan.  550,  84  Pac.  119,  4  L.  127  Ga.  187,  56  S.  E.  313. 

R.  A.   (X.  S.)    1056.  90.  Swift  v.  Pacific  Mail  S.  S.  Co., 

106  N.  Y.  206,  12  N.  E.  583. 


204 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


the  bill  of  ladiug  was  delivered  afterwards  notified  the  carrier  not 
to  deliver  the  goods  to  the  consignee  until  he  produced  the  bill  of 
lading  and  paid  a  draft  which  the  consignor  had  drawn  on  him. 
The  consignor  verbally  assigned  the  bill  of  lading  to  the  bank  in 
whose  favor  the  draft  was  drawn.  The  carrier  delivered  the  goods 
to  the  consignee  without  the  production  of  the  bill  of  lading,  and 
before  the  draft  was  paid.  It  was  held  that  the  consignor  and 
the  bank  were  properly  joined  as  plaintiffs  in  an  action  against 
the  carrier  for  the  loss  of  the  goods.'^  An  action  for  damage  to 
a  shipment  was  properly  brought  in  tort  jointly  against  the  rail- 
way and  the  transportation  company  which  contracted  to  ship 
the  property.'^ 

§  10.  Actions  for  delay. — Nature  and  form. 

Mere  delay  in  transportation,  when  no  demand  for  the  return 
of  the  goods  is  made,  does  not  constitute  such  a  wrongful  detention 
by  a  common  carrier  as  will  sustain  an  action  of  replevin  against 
him.^^  Where  the  direction  to  the  carrier  is  not  to  deliver  the 
goods  imtil  payment  shall  be  made  by  the  consignee,  the  property 
in  the  goods  continues  in  the  consignor,  who  can  sue  for  damage 
to  the  same  caused  by  delay,  either  by  an  action  on  the  case,  or  in 
assumpsit.**  The  owner  of  freight  may  not,  because  of  delay  of 
the  carrier  in  delivering  it,  refuse  to  receive  it,  and  sue  the  carrier 
for  the  value  of  the  goods,  though  he  has  been  obliged  to  buy  other 
like  goods ;  but  he  should  accept  it  and  sue  for  the  damages.*^ 

91.  Hartwell  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Ark.  568,  139  S.  W.  679,  he  could  not 
Co.,  15  Ky.  Law  Rep.  778.  refuse    to    accept    the    shipment    and 

92.  Merchants'   &   Miners'   Transp.      sue  as  for  a  conversion. 

Co.  V.  Eichberg,  109  Md.  211,  71  Atl.  Where   a   carrier   of   fruit   delayed 

993.  the  transportation  and  failed  to   ice 

93.  Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  House,  101  the  car  during  transit,  causing  the 
111.  App.  397.  fruit  to  rot,  the  refusal   of  the  con- 

94.  Spence  v.  Norfolk  &  W.  R.  Co.,  signee  to  accept  the  fruit,  of  some 
92  Va.  102,  22  S.  E.  815,  29  L.  R.  A.  value,  when  tendered  for  delivery  at 
578.  the  point  of  destination,  did  not  pre- 

95.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Albert  vent  him  from  bringing  an  action  for 
Pfeifer  &  Bro.,  90  Ark.  524,  119  S.  damages.  St.  Tvouis,  etc.,  Ry.  Oo.  v, 
W.  642,  22  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.)  1107;  Cumbie,  101  Ark.  172,  141  S.  W.  &39. 
Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.   Co.  v.  Neusch,   99 


ACTIONS  AGAINST   CARRIER.  295 

§11,  Actions  for  delay. — Conditions  precedent. 

Prepayment  of  freight  is  not  necessary  to  sustain  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  refusal  to  carry,  and  delay  in  carrying, 
freight,  unless  required  by  the  carrier.^  Unreasonable  delay  in 
transporting  freight  is  an  active  breach  of  the  carrier's  contract, 
for  which  a  recovery  may  be  had  without  the  formality  of  first 
putting  the  carrier  in  default,  which  is  required  only  in  case  of 
purely  passive  breaches.®^ 

§  12.  Action  against  connecting  carriers. — Nature  and  form. 

In  an  action  for  loss  of  goods  in  shipment,  the  liability  of  the 
defendants,  neither  of  whom  was  the  initial  carrier,  and  one  was 
not  the  terminal  carrier,  was  held  to  be  at  common  law  rather 
than  under  the  Carmack  Amendment  of  the  Hepburn  Act.^  An 
action  for  money  had  and  received  will  not  lie  against  a  delivering 
carrier  of  freight  on  account  of  an  overcharge  resulting  from  mis- 
routing  of  a  shipment  by  the  initial  carrier.^  Where  A.  agreed 
with  B.,  a  common  carrier,  for  the  carriage  of  goods,  and  B., 
without  the  direction  of  A,,  agreed  for  the  carriage  with  C,  who 
without  the  knowledge  or  direction  of  A.,  agreed  with  D.,  a  third 
carrier,  it  was  held  that  A.  might  maintain  an  action  against  D. 
for  not  delivering  the  goods,  and  that  by  bringing  the  action  he 
affirmed  the  contract  made  with  him  by  C.^  An  action  against 
a  carrier,  the  petition  in  which  alleged  that  the  plaintiff  made 
a  shipment  of  potatoes  from  a  station  on  defendant's  line  to  a 
point  on  the  line  of  another  connecting  carrier,  that  demand  was 
made  upon  defendant  to  trace  the  freight  and  make  a  report  to 
plaintiff  as  provided  by  the  statute,  that  there  was  a  failure  to 
comply  with  such  demand,  and  that  suit  was  brought  for  the  differ- 
ence between  the  market  value  of  the  potatoes  at  the  time  and  place 
when  they  should  have  been  delivered  and  their  value  as  delivered, 
was  not  an  action  for  damages  arising  out  of  a  breach  of  the  con- 

96,  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rae.  18  Lewis  Baer  &  Co.,  118  Md.  73,  84  Atl. 
111.   (8  Peck)   488,  68  Am.  Dec.  574.  351. 

97,  Eerje  v,  Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.,  37  99.  Siggins  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  Ry. 
La.  Ann.  468.  Co.    153  Wis.  122,  140  N.  W.  1128. 

98,  New  York  &  B.  Transp.  Line  v,  1.  Sander.son  v.   Lamberton,  6  Bin. 

(Pa.)    ]2!t. 


29G 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


tract  of  carriage,  nor  from  a  breach  of  the  common-law  duty 
resting  upon  the  carrier,  but  was  based  on  the  provisions  of  the 
Georgia  Code  1910,  requiring  common  carriers,  on  application  by 
a  shipper,  to  trace  freight  that  has  been  lost,  damaged  or  destroyed, 
and  to  inform  applicant  in  writing  within  thirty  days  of  the  time, 
place,  and  manner  of  the  loss,  damage,  or  destruction,  and  the 
names  of  the  person  and  their  official  position,  if  any,  by  whom 
such  fact  can  be  established,  and  that,  on  failure  to  do  so,  the 
carrier  shall  be  liable  for  the  value  of  the  freight  lost,  damaged, 
or  destroyed  as  if  such  loss,  damage,  or  destruction  had  occurred 
on  its  own  line.^ 

§  13.  Actions  against  connecting  carriers. — Rights  of  action. 

An  action  for  loss  of  goods  shipped  could  not  be  brought  against 
a  railroad  company  on  its  statutory  liability  as  the  last  connecting 
carrier,  where  there  were  only  two  carriers  concerned  with  the 
shipment,  and  the  first  was  a  steamship  company.^  The  right  of 
a  shipper,  under  the  Oklahoma  statute,  to  demand  of  a  first  carrier 
proof  that  loss  of  or  injury  to  freight  addressed  to  a  point  beyond 
its  line,  where  it  has  been  delivered  to  a  connecting  carrier,  did 
not  occur  on  its  line,  does  not  prohibit  a  shipper  in  the  first  in- 
stance without  such  demand  from  bringing  an  action  for  damages 
for  an  alleged  loss  or  injury.*  Where  a  railroad  company  accepts 
a  quantity  of  grain,  and  at  a  connecting  point  delivers  it  to  a 
connecting  line  for  transportation  to  the  consignee,  and  at  the 
point  of  connection  an  elevator  company  from  whom  the  consignee 
purchased  the  grain  assumes  control  of  it,  has  the  grain  weighed, 
and  sends  the  bill  of  lading  with  draft  attached  for  an  amount 
based  upon  a  much  larger  weight  than  the  weight  of  the  grain, 
and  the  consignee  pays  the  draft  in  order  to  secure  the  grain,  the 
elevator  company  which  was  guilty  of  the  negligence  which  caused 
the  loss  is  liable,  and  not  the  initial  carrier.  ^  Seizure  of  goods 
in  the  hands  of  a  terminal  carrier,  under  an  attachment  sued  out 

2.  Davis    &    Brandon    v.    Seaboard  4.  St.  Ijouis  ft  S.  F.  R,  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Air  Line  Ry.,  136  Ga.  278,  71  S.  E.  Givney,  19  Okl.  361,  91  Pac.  693. 
428.  5.  Smith  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  33 

3.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  v.  Bashineki,  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  643. 
8  Ga.  App.  116,  68  S.  E.  621. 


ACTIONS  AGAINST  CARRIER. 


•Z\)'i 


hj  the  buyer,  is  no  defense  to  an  action  against  the  initial  carrier 
for  failure  to  deliver ;  the  terminal  carrier  having  made  default  in 
illegally  stopping  the  car  at  the  buyer's  instance  short  of  destina- 
tion and  permitting  an  inspection  unauthorized  by  the  bill  of 
lading.®  Under  the  Georgia  statute,  providing  for  the  tracing  of 
freight  that  has  been  lost,  damaged,  or  destroyed  by  the  initial 
or  any  connecting  carrier,  fixing  liability,  etc.,  an  action  brought 
by  the  shipper  is  proper,  though  it  appears  that  the  shipper  is  not 
the  owner  of  the  goods.''  Where  plaintiff  was  a  stranger  to  the 
contract  with  the  connecting  carrier  he  was  not  entitled  to  recover 
for  any  loss  or  damage  occurring  after  his  consignee  had  accepted 
delivery  from  the  initial  carrier.* 

§  14.  Actions  against  connecting  carriers. — Parties. 

An  action  for  loss  of  a  part  of  a  shipment  was  properly  brought 
in  tort  jointly  against  a  connecting  and  terminal  carrier  of  the 
goods.*  Where  an  intermediate  carrier  is  sued  for  loss  of  freight 
on  its  line,  it  cannot  complain  because  the  initial  carrier  also 
liable  is  not  made  a  party  defendant.^"  Under  their  pleading, 
shippers  were  held  not  to  have  waived  their  right  to  proceed,  under 
the  Carmack  Amendment  of  June  29,  1906,  to  the  Hepburn  Act, 
by  joining  both  the  initial  and  terminal  carriers  as  defendants." 
A  partnership  among  several  carriers  entering  into  a  joint  under- 
taking to  carry  particular  freight  is  not  essential  to  authorize  re- 
covery under  the  Missouri  statute,  permitting  a  plaintiff  to  unite 
as  defendants,  in  an  action  for  injury  to  freight,  all  carriers 
through  whose  hands  the  freight  passed,  and  recover  against  the 
culpable  defendant.^  A  receiver  of  a  connecting  carrier  appointed 
more  than  two  years  after  the  delivery  of  the  freight  to  the  initial 

6.  Perkett  v.  Manistee  &  N.  E.  R.  9.  New  York  &  B.  Transp.  Line  v. 
Co.,  —  Mich.  — ,  141  N.  W.  607.              Lewis  Baer  &  Son,  118  Md.  73,  84  Atl. 

7.  Central   of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Mur-      251. 

phey,  116  Ga.  863,  43  S.  E.  265,  60  L.  10.  Lacey  v.  Oregon  R.  &  Nav.  Co., 

R.  A.  817,  revd.  196  U.  S.  194,  25  Sup.  —  Or.  — ,  128  Pac.  999. 

Ct.  218,  49  L.  Ed.  444,  11.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Wil- 

8.  International  &  G.  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Ham  Sperber  &  Co.,  117  Md.  595,  84 
Bingham    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  89  S.  W.  Atl.  72. 

1113.  12.  Crook(»tt  V.  St.  Louis  &  H.  Ry, 

Co.,  —  Mo.  App.  — ,  126  S.  W.  243. 


293  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

carrier  for  transportation  is  not  a  proper  party  to  the  action  for 
the  loss  of  the  freight,  in  the  absence  of  any  allegation  that  the 
goods  or  any  part  thereof  came  into  his  possession,  or  into  the 
possession  of  the  connecting  carrier,  after  his  appointment." 
Since,  if  carriers  were  negligent  in  the  handling  of  freight,  they 
would  be  liable  either  to  the  consignor  or  consignee,  they  could  be 
joined  in  a  cross-action  filed  by  a  consignee  against  the  consignor 
when  sued  for  the  price,  and  alleging  the  consignor's  breach  of 
contract  and  the  railroad  company's  negligence  in  handling  the 
cars  shipped,  especially  where  the  pleadings  made  is  doubtful 
whether  the  carriers'  liability  was  to  the  consignor  or  consignee." 

§  15.  Actions  for  refusal  to  receive  or  transport  goods. 

In  an  action  for  failure  to  furnish  cars,  a  complaint  alleging 
that  defendant  is  a  common  carrier  operating  lines  of  railroad, 
and  that  it  held  itself  out  to  plaintiff  as  a  through  carrier  to  certain 
points  beyond  its  lines  by  traffic  arrangements  with  connecting 
carriers,  is  not  objectionable  in  that  it  fails  to  allege  any  duty 
which  defendant  owed  to  plaintiff.^^  A  complaint  alleging  that 
plaintiff  placed  certain  goods  on  defendant's  side  track  for  ship- 
ment, making  a  verbal  demand  on  the  agent  of  the  defendant  at 
the  nearest  station,  and  on  those  operating  a  local  freight  train 
on  the  division  in  question,  for  a  suitable  car  for  the  shipment, 
and  that  plaintiii  also  wrote  the  train  master  two  or  three  letters, 
is  demurrable,  in  that  it  fails  to  show  a  demand  on  a  person  au- 
thorized to  furnish  cars;  the  complaint,  further  alleging  that  de- 
fendant neglected  and  refused  to  furnish  plaintiff  a  car  for  the 
shipment  of  his  goods,  and  that  plaintiff  loaded  his  goods  in  a  car 
that  had  been  ordered  by  some  one  else,  and  thereafter  the  car  was 
negligently  permitted  to  stand  on  the  side  track  for  five  days,  was^ 
however  sufficient,  against  a  demurrer,  to  show  a  cause  of  action 
for  negligent  delay  in  shipping  the  goods."  In  an  action  against 
a  railroad  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  to  transport  plaintiff's  logs, 

13.  Davies   v.  Texas   Cent.   R.   Co.  15.  Pittsburgh,    efx:.,    Ry.     Co.     v. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  133  S.  W.  295.             Wood,  45  Ind.  App.  1,  88  N.  E.  709, 

14.  Kemendo     v.     Fruit     Dispatch      rehearing  84  N.  E.  1009  denied. 

Co.    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  131  S.  W.  73.  16.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moss, 

75  Ark.  64,  86  S.  W.  828. 


ACTIONS  AGAINST  CARRIER.  299 

where  the  statute  required  the  petition  to  contain  a  plain  and  con- 
cise statement  of  the  facts  constituting  the  cause  of  action,  a 
petition,  alleging  that  during  the  four  months  from  July  to  Octo- 
ber, inclusive,  plaintiff  offered  for  shipment  120,000  feet  of  oak 
logs  of  the  vale  of  $1,920  and  60,000  feet  of  cypress  logs  of  the 
value  of  $840  from  a  certain  station,  and  asked  for  cars,  but  that 
defendant  railroad  failed  to  furnish  them,  and  that  in  consequence 
the  logs  became  damaged,  etc.,  stated  a  case  for  not  furnishing 
cars  to  haul  any  of  the  logs  during  the  months  named ;  allegations 
of  the  value  of  the  two  species  of  logs  and  a  depreciation  in  value 
during  the  period  they  lay  at  the  station  for  lack  of  cars  were 
sufficient  to  enable  defendant  to  prepare  its  defense  so  far  as  the 
measure  of  damages  was  concerned,  and  it  was  not  entitled  to 
require  plaintiff  to  allege  the  market  prices  either  at  such  station 
or  at  the  intended  destination;  plaintiff  did  not  need  to  designate 
in  his  petition  the  character  of  cars  required,  defendant  being 
presumed  to  know  what  kind  were  needed;  and,  where  plaintiff 
did  not  know  from  the  first  that  he  could  not  ship,  that  after  dis- 
covering such  fact  he  continued  to  haul  logs  to  the  station  was  not 
a  defense,  but  cause  only  for  denying  redress  to  the  extent  he 
increased  his  damages  by  accumulating  logs  after  he  knew  that 
cars  would  not  be  available."  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
failure  to  furnish  shipping  facilities,  a  complaint  alleging  that 
defendant  was  a  common  carrier  of  grain,  and  that  plaintiffs  ten- 
dered grain  for  shipment  and  demanded  "  suitable  cars  "  therefor, 
was  not  open  to  the  objection  that  it  did  not  allege  the  class  of 
cars  demanded ;  the  absence  of  an  allegation  in  the  complaint  that 
the  defendant  issued  bills  of  lading  obligating  itself  to  carry 
goods  to  points  beyond  its  own  line  was  not  necessary  on  the  issue 
as  to  its  holding  itself  out  as  a  through  carrier  to  such  points, 
though  such  fact  might  be  material  to  support  the  averment  that 
it  held  itself  out  as  a  through  carrier;  and,  the  complaint  alleging 
that  the  goods  were  tendered,  and  that  plaintiffs  were  "  willing, 
ready,  and  able  to  pay  the  charges  thereon,"  it  was  not  insufficient 
for  failing  to  allege  payment  of  the  freight  on  the  goods  tendered, 
where  there  was  no  basis  for  computing  the  amount  of  the  charges, 

17.  Shoptau^h  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F. 
R.  Co..  —  Mo.  App.  — .  126  S.  W.  7rs. 


300 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


as  the  quantity  of  grain  to  be  shipped  depended  entirely  on  the 
number  and  capacity  of  the  cars  furnished  by  the  carrier.^*  A 
complaint  in  an  action  against  a  railroad  company  for  its  failure 
to  furnish  a  car  in  which  to  ship  plaintiif's  timber,  which  does  not 
allege  that  the  timber  was  tendered  to  or  received  for  shipment 
by  an  agent  authorized  to  ship  the  same,  or  that  the  plaintiff  ap- 
plied for  a  car  to  an  agent  authorized  to  furnish  cars,  is  demurrable 
though  it  alleges  that  the  plaintiff  placed  the  timber  for  shipment 
near  the  company's  tracks  at  a  certain  station,  and  that  he  applied 
to  a  freight  conductor  and  to  the  company's  agents  at  other  stations 
for  a  car.^®  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  furnish 
cars,  there  is  no  variance  between  the  allegation  of  a  petition  that 


18.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Wood,  45  Ind.  App.  1,  84  N.  E.  1009. 
In  an  action  for  failure  to  furnish 
cars,  the  allegation  in  the  complaint 
that  shippers  at  certain  points  at 
•which  defendant  must  compete  with 
other  carriers  were  furnished  cars  for 
shipping  to  points  to  which  plaintiff 
wished  to  ship,  and  that  the  number 
of  cars  so  furnished  was  excessively 
out  of  proportion  to  the  number  fur- 
nished plaintiff,  is  sufficient  to  charge 
diefendant  with  the  duty  of  furnish- 
ing plaintiff  with  his  proportion  of 
cars  to  points  on  its  own  lines,  or  to 
^ints  on  connecting  lines,  to  which 
defendant  held  itself  out  as  through 
carrier.  Pittsburgh  C.  C.  &  St.  L. 
Ry.  Co.  V.  Wood,  45  In4.  App.  1,  &8 
N.  E.  709,  rehearing  84  N.  E.  1009 
denied. 

19.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lee, 
69  Ark.  584,  65  S.  W.  99. 

A  complaint  in  an  action  against 
a  railway  company  for  failure  to  fur- 
nish cars  which  alleges  that  property 
was  tendered  for  shipment  and  that 
cars  were  demanded  in  a  certain 
month  is  sufficiently  definite  as  to  the 
time  when  the  demands  were  made, 
where    the    stations    were    small,    so 


that  the  company  might  ascertain 
whether  such  was  the  fact.  Ohoctaw, 
0.  &  G  Co.  V.  Rolfe,  76  Ark.  220,  88 
S.  W.  870.. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
failure  to  furnish  cars  to  a  shipper 
on  demand  for  the  transportation  of 
timber,  a  complaint  which  alleges 
that  the  shipper  placed  saw  logs  along 
the  carrier's  tracks  for  shipment  and 
made  repeated  demands  for  cars  on 
which  to  ship  them,  and  that  the  car- 
rier neglected  to  furnish  a  sufficient 
number  of  oars,  and  that  by  reason 
thereof  the  logs  deteriorated  in  value 
from  exposure  to  the  weather  in  a 
specified  sum,  and  that  by  the  car- 
rier's negligent  refusal  to  furnish 
cars  the  shipper  was  damaged,  states 
a  cause  of  action,  the  allegations  be- 
ing sufficient  to  show  a  tender  for 
shipment  and  demand  for  cars;  and 
sufficiently  charges  that  the  negli- 
gence of  the  carrier  in  failing  to  fur- 
nish cars  was  the  proximate  cause  of 
the  shipper's  injury,  as  against  the 
objection  that  the  injury  was  due  to 
the  exposure  of  the  logs  to  the 
weather;  and  the  allegation  that  the 
shipper  liad  made  demand  of  the  car- 
rier for  cars  was  sufiicient  to  admit 


ACTIONS  AGAINST  CARRIER.  301 

plaintiff  had  on  hand  at  a  station  for  shipment  in  the  month  of 
July  a  stated  quantity  of  logs,  that  he  demanded  cars  to  load 
them,  and  that  the  carrier  failed  to  furnish  cars,  and  the  proof  that 
the  logs  remained  at  the  station  until  November,  while  plaintiff 
was  vainly  requesting  cars,  the  date  alleged  in  the  petition  being 
immaterial;  and,  where  the  evidence  showed  usage  recognized  by 
the  carrier  of  notifying  its  conductors  to  furnish  cars  when  goods 
were  ready  to  be  shipped,  and  that  plaintiff  had  notified  the  con- 
ductors to  furnish  cars,  and  had  also  notified  a  commercial  freight 
agent  to  furnish  cars,  an  instruction  that,  unless  plaintiff  notified 
the  carrier's  superintendent  that  goods  were  ready  for  shipment 
there  could  be  no  recovery,  was  properly  refused.^  In  an  action 
under  the  railroad  demurrage  law  for  failure  to  furnish  cars, 
an  answer  setting  forth  that  defendant  had  a  large  amount  of 
equipment  unused  during  all  the  period  of  ordinary  business,  that 
in  the  fall  there  was  an  unusually  heavy  traffic,  that  at  the  time  of 
application  of  plaintiff  for  cars  the  demand  for  cars  was  excep- 
tional, that  defendant  had  apportioned  its  equipment  equitably 
so  that  every  portion  of  its  line  had  a  just  share  thereof,  and  that 
plaintiff  was  furnished  with  cars  at  the  earliest  dates  at  which 
defendant  could  furnish  them,  consistent  with  its  duty  to  furnish 
all  applicants  equally,  states  a  good  defense.^^  Where  a  shipper 
tendered  to  a  carrier  perishable  goods  for  shipment,  which  its 
station  agent  refused  to  accept,  because  of  a  personal  dispute  be- 
tween himself  and  the  shipper,  and  the  latter  left  the  goods,  after 
the  refusal,  with  instructions  to  the  agent  to  ship  them,  the  shipper 
was  entitled  to  recover  the  value  of  the  goods,  if  he  left  them 
believing  they  would  be  shipped;  but,  if  to  impose  a  liability  on 
the  carrier,  knowing  they  would  be  lost,  he  could  not  recover." 
A  suit  to  compel  an  interstate  carrier  to  receive  and  transport 
property  tendered  for  shipment  is  one  to  enforce  performance  of  a 
duty  imposed  by  general  law,  and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 

proof  as  to  the  agent  on  whom  de-  20.  Hoffman  Heading  &  Stave  Co. 

mand  was  made,  and  that  he  had  au-  ▼.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  119  Mb. 

thority  to  furnish  the  cars.  St.  Louis,  App.  495,  94  S.  W.  597. 

I.  M.  &  S.  R.  Co.  V.  Wynne  Hoop  *  21.  Martin  v.  Great  Northern  Ry. 

Cooperage  Co.,  81  Ark.  373,  99  S.  W.  Co.,  110  Minn.  118,  134  N.  W.  825. 

375.  22.  Lanning  v.  Sussex  R.  Co.,  1  N. 

J.  Law  J.  21. 


302  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

courts,  and  the  complainant  is  not  required  to  resort  in  the  first 
instance  to  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission.^     That  a  ship- 
per suing  for  the  failure  of  a  carrier  to  furnish  cars  for  the  ship- 
ment of  haj  could  have  secured  cars  in  subsequent  months,  and 
that  the  market  was  as  good  as  when  cars  were  demanded  and 
refused,  did  not  limit  his  recovery  to  nominal  damages.^*     Under 
a  statute  providing  a  penalty,  to  be  recovered  by  the  party  ag- 
grieved, in  case  of  refusal  of  a  carrier  to  take  and  transport  a 
passenger  or  property,  the  shipper,  and  not  a  connecting  carrier 
to  whom  freight  is  consigned,  is  the  party  to  sue  for  the  penalty.^ 
One  sustaining  loss  by  a  carrier's  refusal  to  transport  freight  on 
stipulated  rates  may  recover  loss  sustained  on  contracts  made  on 
the  faith  of  such  rates.^®     Where  one  failed  to  deliver  cars  at  a 
certain  place  as  contracted  for,  the  measure  of  damages  would  be 
such  a  sum  as  would  compensate  the  other  party  for  the  damage 
sustained  by  him  from  such  failure.^    Instructions  that  the  meas- 
ure of  damages  for  a  railroad  company's  failure  to  furnish  mine- 
ovTner  cars  was  the  difference  between  the  cost  of  mining  and  the 
selling  price  were  erroneous  because  they  should  have  taken  into 
account  the  value  of  the  coal  left  in  the  ground.^*     In  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  the  value  of  lumber  which  had  been  ordered 
by  a  customer  from  plaintiff,  but  which  became  a  total  loss  because 
of  the  carrier's  failue  to  accept  it  for  transportation,  a  nonsuit  was 
properly  granted,  where  the  execution  of  the  written  order  for  the 
lumber  was  not  proven.^*     The  failure  of  plaintiff,  in  an  action 
against  a  railroad  for  failure  to  furnish  cars,  to  allege  an  express 
contract,  does  not  bring  the  case  within  the  Minnesota  Reciprocal 
Demurrage  Law,  and  a  recovery  may  be  had  without  alleging  any 
written  demand  for  the  cars.^**    A  statute,  providing  for  the  fixing 

23.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  F.  W.  27.  Williams  v.  Armour  Car  Lines, 
Cook   Brewing  Co.,   172   Fed.   117,  96       7  Pen.   (Del.)   275,  79  Atl.  919. 

C.  C.  A.  322.  28.  Illinois   Cent    R.    Go.   v.   River 

24.  St.  Louis  S.  W.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Leder  &  Rail  Coal  &  Coke  Co.,  150  Ky.  489, 
Bros.,  87  Ark.  298,  112  S.  W.  744.  150  S.  W.  641. 

25.  Crosby  v.  Pere  Marquette  R.  29.  Kent  &  Downs  v.  Wadloy 
Co.,  131  Mich.  288,  91  N.  W.  124,  9  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  136  Ga,  857,  72  S. 
Detroit  Leg.  N.  Sia  E.  413. 

26.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Hig-  30.  Zetterberg  v.  Great  Northern 
don,  149  Ky.  132,  148  S.  W.  26.  Ry.   Co.,   117   Minn.  495,   136  N.   W. 

295. 


ACTIONS  AGAINST  CARRIER.  3O3 

of  reasonable  rules  by  tbe  Railroad  Commission  of  a  time  within 
which  cars  shall  be  furnished  by  a  carrier  after  written  applica- 
tion, and  fixing  a  penalty  per  day  per  car  to  be  paid  by  the  carrier 
for  failure  to  supply  cars  accordingly,  does  not  abrogate  the  com- 
mon law  action  for  damages  to  a  shipper  by  reason  of  a  breach  of 
the  carrier's  common  law  duty  to  furnish  cars  for  transportation 
of  freight  within  a  reasonable  time.^^  Where  a  manufacturer  of 
a  monument  agreed  to  furnish  and  set  up  a  soldier's  monument 
for  which  an  association  agreed  to  pay  $1,500 ;  a  carrier  in  carry- 
ing the  monument  rendered  special  service  pursuant  to  an  arrange- 
ment with  the  association  at  a  cost  of  $700  and  refused  to  carry 
the  same  in  the  regular  course  of  business;  the  manufacturer  ob- 
jected to  the  special  arrangement  or  special  service;  the  carrier 
could  have  delivered  the  monument  in  time  by  rendering  regular 
service  at  a  cost  of  a  few  dollars ;  the  association,  on  receiving  the 
monument,  paid  the  carrier  $1,500,  and  the  carrier  retained  for 
its  special  services  $700,  the  manufacturer  was  held  entitled  to 
a  recovery  of  the  $700,  based  on  a  breach  of  the  duty  of  the  car- 
rier and  a  wrongful  interference  with  the  rights  of  the  manufac- 
turer, and  the  fact  that  the  carrier  transported  the  property  of 
the  manufacturer,  as  it  was  bound  to  do,  and  delivered  it  in  good 
order,  did  not  afford  a  complete  answer  to  the  manufacturer's 
claim  for  damages.^^  In  an  action  against  a  common  carrier  for 
failure  to  furnish  cars  to  ship  timber,  where  the  defense  was  made 
that  there  was  an  unusual  volume  of  traffic,  plaintiff  was  properly 
allowed  to  prove  by  other  shippers  that  in  the  seasons  preceding 
the  one  in  question  there  was  a  car  shortage  on  defendant's  road, 
in  the  district  from  which  plaintiff  was  shipping;  where  the  evi- 
dence showed  that  the  defendant  at  no  time  notified  plaintiff  that 
it  could  not  furnish  cars  because  of  an  unexpected  rush  of  busi- 
ness, but  encouraged  him  in  getting  out  his  timber  and  promised 
to  furnish  cars  to  ship  it,  a  declaration  of  law  that  if  there  was  a 
sudden  and  unexpected  increase  in  defendant's  business,  or  if 
high  water  delayed  defendant  in  handling  its  business,  it  was  not 
liable  whether  it  notified  plaintiff"  of  its  condition  or  not  was 

31.  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Moore,  133  32.  Harrison  Granite   Oo.  v.  Penn- 

Ga.  806,  67  S.  E.  85.  sylvania  R.   Co.,   145   Mich.   712,   108 

N.  W.  1081,  13  Detroit  Leg.  N.  631. 

20 


oO-i 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


more  liberal  to  defendant  than  was  justified;  and  where  the  un- 
contradicted evidence  showed  that  defendant  agreed  to  furnish 
at  least  one  car  a  day  and  several  times  told  plaintiff  that  cars 
would  be  furnished,  and  that  when  he  inquired  as  to  the  situation 
and  notified  defendant  that  he  was  keeping  a  large  crew  of  men 
on  hand  at  a  large  expense  to  have  them  ready  to  load  cars,  de- 
fendant notified  him  that  the  cars  would  be  furnished,  the  court 
was  justified  in  refusing  to  declare  as  matter  of  law,  that  there 
was  no  evidence  of  an  agreement  to  furnish  cars-^  A  dealer 
cannot  recover  damages  for  a  carrier's  refusal  to  transport  coal 
arising  from  his  contract  to  buy  the  coal  to  be  carried,  where  the 
amount  of  coal  to  be  delivered  was  optional  with  the  seller,  and 
it  does  not  appear  that  the  dealer  made  any  contracts  for  resale  on 
the  faith  of  it  that  caused  him  loss ;  but,  as  to  another  agreement 
binding  the  seller  to  deliver  a  specified  amount,  the  dealer  can 
recover  the  enhanced  cost  of  delivering  coal  under  contracts  for 
resale  made  on  the  strength  of  such  agreement.^^  Where  plain- 
tiff sought  to  establish  his  banana  business  in  Central  America, 
and  expended  considerable  money  in  his  plant,  it  was  engaged  in 
foreign  commerce  when  it  began  to  move  men,  material,  and  sup- 
plies to  and  from  the  United  States  to  Central  American  ports 
in  furtherance  of  its  business,  and  was  therefore  entitled  to  compel 
defendant  to  furnish  transportation  facilities  on  the  same  terms 
that  defendant  furnished  such  facilities  to  others.^^  Whether  a 
carrier  unreasonably  neglected  to  provide  a  sufficient  number  of 
cars  to  forward  freight  is  a  question  for  the  jury.^®  The  rule  that 
whether  a  carrier  negligently  failed  to  supply  cars  when  de- 
manded is  for  the  jury  applies  only  where  a  specified  and  definite 
notice  of  the  time  when  the  cars  are  required  is  shown."  In  an 
action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  furnish  plaintiff  with  cars, 
the  evidence  was  held  sufficient  to  make  it  a  question  for  the  jury 
whether  there  was  such  a  sudden  and  unusual  increase  of  business 

33.  Cronan  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  36.  Strough  v.  New  York  Cent,  etc., 
Co.,  149  Mo.  App.  384,  130  S.  W.  437.  R.   Co.,   92  App.   Div.   584,   87  N.   Y. 

34.  Crescent  Goal  Co.  v.  Louisville  Supp.  30,  affd.  181  N.  Y.  533,  73  N. 
&  N.  R.  Co.,  143  Ky.  73,   135  S.  W.  E.  1133. 

768.  37.  Di  Giorgio  Importing  &  Steam- 

35.  American  Banana  Co,  t.  United      ship   Co.   v.   Pennsylvania  R.   Co.,  — 
Fruit  Co.,  160  Fed.  184.  Md.  — ,  65  Atl.  425. 


ACTIONS  AGAINST  CARRIER.  305 

and  demand  for  cars  over  defendant's  road  as  to  release  it  from 
its  liability  for  failure  to  furnish  cars.^^  Whether  defendant,  a 
carrier,  with  knowledge  of  all  the  facts,  interfered  with  plaintiff's 
shipment  of  a  monument  over  its  line  by  refusing  its  regular  ser- 
vice which  would  have  been  adequate  to  deliver  the  monument 
by  the  date  provided  for  in  plaintiff's  contract  with  the  purchasers, 
and  shipped  by  special  service  at  much  greater  expense,  which 
had  to  be  paid  from  the  fund  provided  for  the  purchase  of  the 
monument,  and  hence  ultimately  by  plaintiff,  was  a  question  for 
the  jury.^'  Where  a  shipper  based  his  action  against  a  carrier 
upon  its  failure  to  furnish  cars  on  a  given  date  alleged  to  be  a 
reasonable  time  after  a  demand,  a  charge  authorizing  a  recovery 
for  failure  to  furnish  cars  in  a  reasonable  time  generally  was 
erroneous  as  submitting  an  issue  not  pleaded.**^ 

38.  Dillender  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  sylvania   R.    Co.,    154   Mich.   48,   117 
R.  Co.,  149  Mo.  App.  331,  130  S.  W.  N.  W.  549,  15  Detroit  Leg.  N.  683. 
107.  40.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Word 

39.  Harrison  Granite  Co.  v.  Penn-  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  124  S.  W.  478. 


CHAPTER   VII. 

Liability  foe  Loss  ok  Damage. 

6BOTION     1.  Liability  of  carrier  for  loss  or  damage. 

2.  Distinction  between  act  of  God  and  inevitable  accident. 

3.  Loss  or  damage  by  act  of  God,  via  major,  or  inevitable  accident. 

4.  Proximate  cause  of  loss  or  injury. 

5.  Loss  or  injury  by  the  public  enemy. 

6.  Seizure  under  legal  process.  Attachment. 

7.  Seizure  under  legal  process.    Garnishment. 

8.  Seizure  under  police  regulations. 

9.  Duty  of  carrier  after  disaster. 

10.  Loss  or  injury  from  inherent  nature  of  goods. 

11.  Care  required  of  carrier  in  general. 

§  1.  Liability  of  carrier  for  loss  or  damage. 

The  liability  of  a  carrier  of  goods  is  that  of  a  common  carrier^ 
which  is  that  of  an  insurer;  and  in  cases  of  loss  of  or  injury  to 
goods  intrusted  to  it  for  transportation  no  excuse  avails  such  car- 
rier, except  that  such  loss  or  injury  was  occasioned  by  the  act  of 
God,  or  the  public  enemies  of  the  State,  or  the  sole  fault  of  the 
owner  or  his  agent.^  The  law  adjudges  the  carrier  responsible, 
irrespective  of  any  question  of  negligence  or  fault  on  his  part,  if 
the  loss  does  not  occur  by  the  act  of  God  or  the  public  enemies. 
With  these  exceptions,  the  carrier  is  an  insurer  against  all  losses.* 

1.  McCarthy  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  See   Liability   of   the   common  car- 
Co.,   102  Ala.   193,   48   Am.   St.   Rep.  rier,  §  2,  chap.  2. 
29,  14  So.  370,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  2.  Merritt  v.  Earle,  29  N.  Y.  115; 
178;   Central  of  Ga.  R.   Co.  v.  Lipp-  Heyman  v.  Stryker,  116  N.  Y.  Supp. 
man,  110  Ga.  665,  36  S.  E.  202,  dis-  638. 

tinguishing  Phillips  v.  Railroad  Co.,  An    agreement    by    a    railroad    to 

93   Ga.    356,    20    S.    E.   247    Boyd   v.  transport  goods  from  one  station  to 

Spencer,  103  Ga.  828,  30  S.  E.  841;  another   within   a   certain   time   does 

Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Barlow,  104  Ga.  not  make  the  carrier  an  absolute  in- 

213,  30  S.  E.  733;   Central  of  G*.  R.  surer  of  the  goods,  but  their  destruc- 

Co.  V.  Ricks,   34  S.  E.   570,  109   Ga.  tion  within  the  prescribed  time  by  an 

339^  act  of  God  will  excuse  non-delivery. 

(306) 


LIABILITY  FOR  LOSS  OR  DAMAGE.  307 

The  exceptions  to  this  rule  of  liability  are  given  in  the  chapter 
on  common  carriers  and  are  considered  in  the  subsequent  sections 
of  this  chapter.  For  example,  a  common  carrier  is  liable  for  the 
loss  of  goods  by  fire,  unless  the  fire  was  caused  by  the  act  of  God, 
the  public  enemy,  or  the  inherent  quality  of  the  goods.^  Usually 
in  an  action  for  the  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods  shipped  to  be  de- 
livered in  another  State,  the  law  of  the  place  of  shipment  is  held 
to  govern,*  unless  the  parties  contracted  with  reference  to  some 
other  law.^    But  it  has  been  held  otherwise  in  some  jurisdictions.* 

§  2.  Distinction  between  "  Act  of  God  "  and  "  Inevitable  Acci- 
dent." 
The  expressions  "  act  of  God  "  and  "  inevitable  accident  "  have 
a  distinction  in  meaning,  although  they  are  sometimes  used  in  a 
similar  sense,  and  as  synonymous  or  equivalent  terms.'  That  may 
be  an  "  inevitable  accident "  which  no  foresight  or  precaution  of 
the  carrier  could  prevent ;  but  the  phrase  "  act  of  God  "  denotes 
natural  necessity,  that  which  arises  from  natural  causes,  natural 
accidents  that  could  not  happen  by  the  intervention  of  man,  such 
as  storms,  lightning,  and  tempests.  The  expression  excludes  all 
human  agency.*    If  the  loss  or  injury  happen  in  any  way  through 

Sauter  v.  Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   78  a  carrier   in   New  York   to  be  deliv- 

Kan.  331,  97  Pac.  434.  ered  in  Ohio,  and  is  negligently  lost, 

3.  Farley  v.  Lavary  (Ky.),  54  S.  in  an  action  for  such  loss  the  place 
W.  840.  Se«  Common  Carriers,  chap.  of  delivery  is  the  place  of  the  per- 
2;  Limitation  of  liability,  chap.  10.  formance    of    the    contract,    and    the 

4.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Steam  Co.  v.  In-  law  of  Ohio  governs.  Jacobson  v. 
surance  Co.,  129  U.  S.  397,  32  L.  Ed.  Adams  Express  Co.,  1  0.  C.  D.  212. 
788,  9  S.  Ct.  469;  Hale  v.  New  Jer-  7.  Neal  v.  Saiinderson,  2  Sm.  M. 
Bey  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  15  Conn.  539,  39  (Miss.)  572,  41  Am.  Dec.  609;  Wal- 
Am.  Dec.  398;  MoDaniel  v.  Railway  pole  v.  Bridges,  5  Blackf.  (Ind.)  222; 
Co.,  24  Iowa,  412;  Talbott  v.  Trans-  Fowler  v.  Davenport,  21  Tex.  626. 
portation  Co.,  41  Iowa,  247;  Fairchild  8.  Merritt  v.  Earle,  29  N.  Y.  115, 
V.  Railroad  Co.,  148  Pa.  527,  24  Atl.  86  Am.  Dec.  292;  Proprietors  Trent, 
79;  Cantu  v.  Bennett,  39  Tex.  303.  etc.,  Nav.  Co.  v.  Wood,  4  Dougl.  297, 

5.  In  re  Missouri  Steamship  Co.,  26  E.  C.  L.  479,  3  Esp.  127,  1  T.  R. 
L.  R.  42  Ch.  Div.  321.  28  note;   Forward  v.  Pittard.  1  T.  R. 

S.  ^Vhf^rp  a  pnckrigo  is  delivered  to      27,  1  Rev.  Rep.  142;  New  Brunswick 


508 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


the  ngency  of  man  it  cannot  be  considered  the  act  of  God ;  nor 
even  if  the  act  or  negligence  of  man  contributes  to  bring  or  leaves 
the  goods  of  the  carrier  under  the  operation  of  natural  causes  that 
work  their  injury,  is  he  excused.  To  excuse  the  carrier  the  act 
of  God,  or  vis  divina,  must  be  the  sole  and  immediate  cause  of 
the  injury.  If  there  be  any  cooperation  of  man,  or  any  admixture 
of  human  means,  the  injury  is  not  in  a  legal  sense  the  act  of  God.' 
Where  the  common  law  rule  applies  under  which  no  excuse  avails 
a  common  carrier  in  cases  of  loss,  unless  occasioned  by  the  act  of 
God  or  the  public  enemy,  if  a  locomotive  engineer  leaves  his  train 
and  proceeds  with  his  engine  to  a  water  tank,  taking  the  conductor 
with  him,  and,  on  returning  to  where  the  cars  were,  causes  the 
engine  to  run  at  a  dangerous  speed,  wrecking  one  of  the  cars  and 
causing  the  loss  of  property  being  transported,  the  loss  is  not  the 
act  of  God,  within  the  meaning  so  as  to  excuse  the  carrier,  if  the 
engineer  were  insane  at  the  time.^** 

§  3.  Loss  or  damage  by  act  of  God,  vis  major,  or  .inevitable 
accident. 

A  common  carrier,  to  exempt  itself  from  liability  for  loss  of 
or  injury  to  goods  received  for  transportation,  must  show  that  no 
act  or  neglect  of  it  concurred  in  or  contributed  to  the  loss  or  in- 
jury; if  in  consequence  of  its  departure  from  the  line  of  its  duty, 
the  goods  be  lost  or  injured  by  the  act  of  God,  it  is  not  excused.^^ 

Steamboat,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v.  Tiers,  C.)   468;  McFenry  v.  Railroad  Co.,  4 

24  N.   J.  L.   697,   64   Am.   Dee.   394;  Harr.   (Del.)  448. 

Stockton    Lumber    Oo.    y.    California  10.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hall, 

Nav.  &  Imp.   Co.,   10  Oal.  App.   197,  124  Ga.  322,  52  S.  E.  679. 

101   Pac.    541,   an   irresistible   super-  11.  Michaels  r.  New  York  Cent.  R. 

human  cause;  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  C^.,  30  N.  Y.  564;  Read  v.  Spaulding, 

Barfield,   1   Ga.   App.   203,    58   S.   E.  30  N,  Y.   630,   5  Bos.    (N.  Y.)    395; 

236;   Carpenter  v.  Baltimore  &  0.  R.  Dunson  t.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  3 

Co.,  6  Pen.   (Del.)    15,  64  Atl.  252.  Lans.     (N.    Y.)     265;    Wing   v.    New 

9.  Michaels  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    1   Hilt.    (N.   Y.) 

Co.,  30  N.  Y.  564;   Merritt  v.  Earle,  235;    Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Smith,   31 

31  Barb.    (N.  \.)    38,  29  N.  Y.  115;  Ky.   Law  Rep.   243,   102   S.   W.   232; 

McArthur  v.  Sears,  21  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  Jones    t.    Minneapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

19©;  Campbell  t.  Moore,  1  Harp.   (S.  (Minn.),  97  N.  W.  893. 


LIABILITY   FOR  LOSS  OR  DA^^IAGE.  309 

Where  a  carrier  needlessly  delays  a  shipment  or  negligently  fails 
to  protect  it  from  threatened  danger,  and  the  goods  are  overtaken 
in  transit  and  destroyed  by  act  of  God  and  such  negligence  is  the 
proximate  cause  of  the  injury,  the  carrier  is  liable  whether  the 
goods  are  perishable  or  not.^     A  common  carrier  is  not  exempt 
from  liability  by  a  loss  occasioned  by  an  act  of  God  if  such  carrier 
l.'as  been  guilty  of  any  previous  negligence  which  brings  the  prop- 
erty in  contact  with  the  destructive  force  or  unnecessarily  exposes 
it  thereto/^    Where  goods  are  injured  or  destroyed  by  providential 
causes  while  in  the  possession  of  a  carrier  in  default,  the  carrier 
is  liable,  since  its  default  is  an  operative  cause  concurrent  with  the 
act  of  God.^*    Where  the  results  or  natural  consequences  of  an  act 
of  God  may  be  forseen  and  guarded  against,  by  the  exercise  of 
reasonable  diligence,  prudence,  and  foresight,  a  failure  to  do  so 
would  be  negligence,  and  subject  the  carrier  to  damages,  although 
the  original  cause  was  an  act  of  God.^^     A  loss  arising  from  an 
accidental  fire,  or  conflagration  of  a  city,  without  any  default 

The  carrier  has  the  burden  of  proof  son,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   83   Kan.   104,   109 

to  show  that  it  used  every  reasonable  Pac.   1005. 

effort  to  avoid  the  effects  of  an  inev-  12.  Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Quarles 

itable    accident.      Richmond,   etc.,    R.  &  Conturie,  145  Ala.  436,  40  So.  120, 

Co.  V.  White,  88  Ga.   805,  55  Am.  &  5  L.  R.  A.    (N.  S.)    867,  117  Am.  St. 

Eng.  R.  Cas.  682;  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Rep.  54,  property  destroyed  by  a  cy- 

Co.  V.   Kennedy,   78   Ga.   646.  clone;    Sunderland   Bros.   Co.  v.   Chi- 

A    railroad    company     transported  cago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Neb.  660,  131  N. 

goods  to  destination  and  notified  the  W.  1047. 

owner   to   take   them    away.      In    re-  13.  Tate  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry   Co., 

sponse  the  owner  promptly  called  at  157  111.  App.  105. 

the   depot,   tendered  the  charges   due  14.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Sigma 

and    demanded    the    delivery    of    the  Lumber  Co.,  170  Ala.  627,  54  So.  205. 

goods,    which    demand    the    railroad  15.  Cunningham     v.     Pennsylvania 

company  refused.     The   next  day  an  R.  Co.,  40  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  212;   Lang 

unprecedented    flood    occurred    whicji  v.   Pennsylvania  R.   Co.,   154   Pa.   St. 

damaged   the  goods.     Eeld,  that  the  342,   32   W.  N.   C.    (Pa.)    205,   2   Pa. 

company  having  refused  the  owner's  IHst.    Rep.    125,    the    loss    of    whis- 

demand  and  wrongfully  detained  the  key   on   a   train   wrecked   by   a   flood 

goods,  held  them  at  its  own  risk,  and  cannot   be    attributed    to    an    inevit- 

was     responsible     for     the     damage  able    accident,    so    as    to    relieve    the 

caused  by  the  flood.    Henry  v.  Atchi-  carrier     from     liability,     where    the 


310 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


whatever  on  the  part  of  the  carrier,  and  not  occasioned  bj  light- 
ning or  some  operation  of  nature,  does  not  excuse  the  carrier  from 
liability  for  loss  of  goods  in  its  custody,  for  such  loss  does  not  fall 
within  the  exception  as  an  act  of  God.^®  A  floo^  which  no  human 
power  could  stay  and  no  prudence  or  foresight  anticipate,  or  an 
extraordinary  or  unprecedented  or  overwhelming  Hood  which  could 
not  have  been  reasonably  forscen,  is  an  act  of  God  which  will  re- 
lieve a  carrier  who  is  free  from  negligence  from  liability  for 


whiskey    was    not    destroyed    by   the 
flood,  but  part  of  it  was  stolen  with- 
out any  attempt  of  the  trainmen  to 
prevent    it,    and    the    remainder    de- 
stroyed by  a  volunteer  guard  of  citi- 
zens   in    order    to    prevent    it    from 
falling   into    the   hands   of    the   dan- 
gerous class  of  men  who  were  deter- 
mined to  capture  it.     Adams  Express 
Co.    V.    Jackson,    92    Tenn.    326,    21 
S.     W,     666,     an     express    company 
which,  knowing  of  the  interruption  of 
its  route  by  the  act  of  God,  such  as 
an  unprecedented  flood,  undertakes  to 
carry  out  its  prior  contract  to  trans- 
port horses,  is  liable  for  injuries  to 
them    while    they    are    being    trans- 
ported  by   another  express   company 
to    which    it    delivers    them    at    the 
point  of  interruption,  caused  by  de- 
lay   and   their   being   frightened   and 
thrown    down    by    the    backing    and 
switching  of  cars  in  which  they  are 
carried,     especially    where    it    could 
have    procured    ample    facilities    for 
rapid    and    safe    transit    over    other 
lines.     Ladd  v.  Foster,   31  Fed.  827, 
wliere    through    the     negligence     of 
those   in  charge  of   a   ferry   boat,   it 
turned    over    on    its   side,    and    then 
righted  with  the  cabins  full  of  water 
end    a   passenger    jumped   out   of   a 


window  and  struck  a  cable,  which, 
but  for  the  negligence  aforesaid, 
would  not  have  been  in  the  way,  the 
facts  were  held  to  justify  a  recovery 
in  an  action  by  the  passenger's  ad- 
ministrator. 

16.  Miller  v.  Steam  Navigatidu 
Co.,  10  N.  Y.  431,  Seld.  Notes  (N. 
Y.)  64;  Parsons  v,  Monteath,  13 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  353;  Gould  v.  Hill,  2 
Hill  (N.  Y.)  623;  Goold  v.  Chapin,  10 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  612,  20  N.  Y.  259; 
Gilmore  v.  Carman,  1  Sm.  &  M. 
(Miss.)  279,  40  Am.  Dec.  96;  Chev- 
alier V.  Strahara,  2  Tex.  115,  47  Am. 
Dec.  639 ;  Forward  v.  Pittard,  1  T.  R. 
27,  1  Rev.  Rep.  142;  Scott  County 
Milling  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
127  Mo.  App.  80,  104  S.  W.  924. 

Act  of  God  means  something  super- 
human, or  something  in  opposition 
to  the  act  of  man.  Loss  by  fire,  as  in 
the  great  Chicago  fire  of  1871,  there- 
fore, will  not  relieve  a  carrier  from 
his  undertaking.  Merchants'  Dis- 
patch Co.  V.  Smith,  76  III.  542. 

A  common  carrier  is  not  liable  for 
injury  to  property  in  transportation, 
caused  entirely  by  an  earthquake,  and 
unaccompanied  by  negligence  on  its 
part.  Slater  v.  South  Carolina  R. 
Co.,  29  S.  C.  96,  6  S.  E.  936. 


LIABILHY   FOR  LOSS   OR   DAMAGE. 


311 


damage  hj  the  flood  to  goods  in  his  custody."  A  carrier  is  liable 
for  loss  of  freight  from  a  flood,  if  it  was  aware  of  its  approach 
in  time  to  remove  the  goods  to  a  place  of  safety  by  the  exercise  of 


17.  Ala. — Smith  v.  Western  R.  Oo., 
91  Ala.  455,  8  So,  754,  24  Am.  St. 
Rep.  429,  49  Am.  &,  Eng.  R.  Cas.  210, 
11  L.  R.  A.  619. 

Fla.—J.  C.  Williams  &  Co.  v.  Pen- 
sacola,  etc.,  S.  S.  Co.,  57  Fla.  544,  48 
So.   630. 

Ga. — Wallace  v.  Clayton,  42  Ga. 
443. 

Kan. — Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Henry,  78  Kan.  490,  97  Pac.  465,  18 
L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  177. 

Mo. — Lightfoot  V.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  126  Mo.  App.  532,  104  S.  W. 
482,  carrier  is  not  liable  notwith- 
standing negligible  delay  of  the  car- 
rier in  transporting  the  goods,  where- 
by they  were  exposed  to  the  flood; 
Wertheimer,  Swartz  Shoe  Co.  v.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.,  147  Mo.  App.  489, 
126  S.  W.  793;  Elam  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  131  Mo.  App.  115,  110  S. 
W.  601,  117  Mo.  App.  453,  93  S.  W. 
851.  See  Edwards  v.  Lee,  147  Mo. 
App.  38,  126  S.  W.  144. 

While  a  carrier  is  responsible  for 
an  injury  caused  by  the  concurrence 
of  its  negligence  with  an  act  of  God, 
yet  such  injury  must  be  a  natural  and 
probable  consequence  of  the  negli- 
gence and  not  an  unusual  and  unan- 
ticipated consequence,  such  as  an  in- 
jury to  goods  caused  by  an  unprece- 
dented and  unforeseen  flood,  to  which 
the  carrier's  negligent  delay  in  mov- 
ing the  goods  subjected  them.  Mof- 
fatt  Commission  Oo.  v.  Union  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  113  Mo.  App.  544,  88  S.  W.  117. 

Tew. — Fentiman    v.    Atchison,    etc., 


R.  Co.,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  455,  98  S. 
W.  939. 

The  Johnstown  flood  of  1889,  which 
was  of  such  extraordinary  character 
that  a  party  was  not  bound  to  an- 
ticipate or  provide  against  it,  and 
which  came  with  such  suddenness  and 
power  that  escape  from  it  was  im- 
possible, was  an  inevitable  accident 
or  act  of  God  in  respect  to  the  loss 
of  baggage  on  a  railroad  train,  where 
utmost  care  was  exercised  by  the 
agents  and  employes  of  the  oarrier  to 
escape  the  dangers  of  which  they  had 
knowledge  or  which  they  had  reason- 
able ground  to  apprehend.  Long  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  147  Pa.  St.  343, 
30  Am.  St.  Rep.  732,  14  L.  R,  A.  741, 
23  Atl.  459,  29  W.  N.  C.  375.  But 
the  carrier  was  not  exempt  from  lia- 
bility for  a  loss  which  took  place  be- 
cause of  the  act  of  God,  if  the  carrier 
had  been  guilty  of  any  previous  negli- 
gence or  misconduct,  such  as  unneces- 
sary delay,  which  subjected  the  goods 
in  its  possession  to  a  loss  by  the  act 
of  God  which  they  would  not  other- 
wise have  met  with.  Wald  v.  Pitts- 
burg, etc.,  R.  Co.,  162  111.  545,  44 
N.  E.  888,  53  Am.  St.  Rep.  332,  35 
L.  R.  A.  356,  5  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
N.  S.  70. 

The  flood  on  May  20  and  31,  1903, 
at  the  junction  of  the  Kaw  and  Mis- 
souri rivers,  at  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  was 
an  act  of  God,  and  a  carrier  was  not 
liable  for  loss  of  freight  in  such  a 
flood,  though  it  was  negligent  in 
not  getting  the  car  containing  plain- 


312 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


ordinary  care  and  diligence.'"  A  common  carrier  is  responsible 
for  injuries  to  freight  by  a  flood,  where  at  the  date  the  goods  were 
delivered  the  officer  in  charge  of  the  United  States  Weather  Bureau 
notified  all  railroad  companies  of  the  coming  flood  and  warned 
them  to  guard  their  property  in  the  low  lands,  and  the  carrier 
exposed  the  goods  negligently  to  injury,  and  it  cannot  in  such  case 
plead  the  act  of  God  as  a  defense.^*  Where  a  carrier  negligently 
delays  a  shipment  of  goods,  so  that  it  is  destroyed  by  an  act  of 
God  which  would  not  have  destroyed  it,  except  for  the  delay,  the 
carrier  is  liable.^"  An  act  of  God  which  will  excuse  a  common, 
carrier  for  loss  of  goods  is  such  an  inevitable  accident  as  cannot  be 
prevented  by  human  care,  skill,  or  foresight,  but  results  from  natu- 
ral causes,  such  as  lightning,  tempests,  floods,  etc.^^  A  snow  storm 
or  blizzard  of  such  violence  as  to  prevent  the  moving  of  trains  is 
an  act  of  God  which  will  exempt  a  carrier  from  liability  for  loss 
of  or  damage  to  property  shipped,  occasioned  thereby  without 
the  carrier's  fault.^^     A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  injury  to  prop- 

tiflf's  goods  out  of  its  freight  yards  18.  Pinkerton  v.  Missouri  Pax;.  R. 

before  the  destructive  part  of  the  un-  Co.,  117  Mo.  App.  288,  93  S.  W.  849. 

precedented  flood,  constituting  an  act  19.  Wabash   R.   C5o.   v.    Sharpe,   76 

of  God,  came,  unless   it  was  warned  Neb.  424,  107  N.  W.  758. 

of  the  approach,  not  merely  of  a  rise  20.  Green-Wheeler  Shoe  Co.  v.  Chi- 

in  the  river,  but  of  the  flood.     Mer-  cago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  Iowa  123,  106 

ritt   Creamery   Co.  v.   Atchison,   etc.,  N.  W.  498,  5  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.)   882. 

R.  Co.,  139  Mo.  App.  149,  122  S.  W.  21.  Carpenter  v.  Baltimore  &  0.  R. 

322.  Co.,  6  Pen.    (Del.)    15,  64  Atl.  252. 

The  carrier  was  not  liable  for  the  22.  Jones   v.    Minneapolis,   etc.,   R. 

loss  of  property  in  shipment  through  Co.,  91  Minn.  229,  103  Am.  St.  Rep. 

the  act  of  God,  which  could  not  rea-  507,  97  N.  W.  893;  Herring  v.  Chesa- 

sonably  have  been  foreseen,  although,  peake,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   101  Va.   778,   45 

but    for    its    previous    negligence,    by  S.  E.  322;    Ballentine  v.  North  Mis- 

which  the  shipment  was  delayed,  the  souri,  40  Mo.  491,  93  Am.  Dec.  315; 

property  would  have  escaped  the  dan-  Black    v.    Chioago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    30 

ger,  and  the  loss  would  not  have  oc-  Neb.  197,  46  N.  W.  428,  1  Neb.  L.  J. 

curred.     Empire   State  Cattle  Co.  v.  30.     These  were  cases  of  loss  or  in- 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135  Fed.  135;  jury  to  cattle  while  in  transit  from 

Minnesota,  etc..  Cattle  Co.  v.  Atchi-  exposure     to     severe    weather.       See 

son,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135  Fed.  135.  Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Smissen,  31  Tex. 


LIABILITY  FOR  LOSS   OR  DAMAGE.  3^3 

ertj  resulting  from  a  sudden  and  severe  whirlwind  the  like  of 
which  had  not  previously  occurred  in  the  locality,^^  or  for  the  loss 
of  goods  destroyed  by  fire  caused  by  a  furious  wind  which  blows  a 
car  from  the  track  and  overturning  it  causes  it  to  be  set  afire  ;^^ 
but  where  the  proximate  cause  of  the  burning  was  a  sudden  gust 
of  wind  diverting  the  course  of  a  distant  fire  so  as  to  drive  the 
flames  in  the  direction  of  and  upon  the  carrier's  warehouse  which 
was  destroyed,  such  fire,  though  accidental,  was  not  the  act  of  God, 
so  as  to  excuse  a  common  carrier  for  the  destruction  of  goods  in 
his  charge.^^    A  sudden  failure  of  the  wind  causing  the  wreck  of 
a  vessel  has  been  held  to  be  an  act  of  God.^®    But  an  injury  is  not 
attributable  to  an  act  of  God,  but  to  neglect,  where,  for  example, 
it  is  caused  by  the  fall  of  a  sign  in  a  wind  such  as  might  be  ex- 
pected in  the  regular  course  of  the  season,"  or  by  a  landslide 
caused  by  a  rain  of  not  unusual  violence.^^     But  the  mere  fact  that 
a  railroad  was  constructed  close  to  a  highway,  and  the  injury  was 
caused  by  that  proximity,  did  not  constitute  negligence,  although 
defendant  might  have  built  another  road  farther  off,  which  would 
have  been  perfectly  safe."^     An  extraordinary  or  unprecedented 
storm,  flood,  or  other  unavoidable  casualty  caused  by  the  hidden 
forces  of  nature  unknown  to  common  experiences,  and  which  could 
not  have  reasonably  been  anticipated  by  that  degree  of  engineering 
skill  and  experience  required  in  the  prudent  construction  of  a 
railroad,  or  which  the  ordinary  safeguards  provided  by  the  carrier 

Civ.  App.   549,   73  S.  W.  42,  holding  64.       See    Hollister     v.     Nowlen,     19 

that    severe    cold    and    snow    in    De-  Wend.   (N.  Y.)   234. 

cember  in  Missouri  was  not  "  an  act  26.  Colt    v.    McMechen,    6    Johns. 

of    God"    which    excused    the    carrier  (N.  Y.)   160,  5  Am.  Dec.  200. 

from  liability.  27.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Hop- 

23.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Compton,  kins,  (Ark.)  15  S.  W.  610,  12  L.  R. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  38  S.  W.  220.  A.   189. 

24.  Blythe  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28.  Gleeson  v.  Virginia  Midland  R. 
15  Colo.  "333,  22  Am.  St.  Rep.  403,  25  Co.,  140  U.  S.  435,  35  L.  Ed.  458,  11 
Pac.  702,  11  L.  R.  A.  615.  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  859,  44  Alb.  L.  J.  33. 

25.  Miller  v.  Steam  Navigation  29.  Beatty  v.  Central  Iowa  R.  Co., 
Co.,  10  N.  Y.  431,  Seld.  Notes  (N.  Y.)  58  Iowa  242,  8  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Caa. 

210. 


314: 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


arc  wholly  insufficient  to  withstand  the  effects  of,  must  be  regarded 
as  an  unavoidable  or  inevitable  accident,  vis  major,  or  an  act  of 
God,  which  will  not  render  the  carrier  liable  for  the  damages, 
where  such  unprecedented  storm  is  the  proximate  cause  of  the 
injury,**  In  order  to  charge  the  carrier  with  goods  lost  in  an 
unprecedented  storm,  plaintiff  must  show  that  by  ordinary  prud- 
ence it  could  have  protected  the  goods  after  becoming  aware  of 
the  impending  danger.^^  Interruption  to  navigation  by  frost  or 
ice,  the  freezing  up  of  canals,  rivers,  or  other  means  of  water 
transportation,  is  an  act  of  God  which  will  exonerate  the  carrier 
from  losses  occurring  from  such  causes,  where  no  fault  is  im- 
putable to  the  carrier.^^    The  carrier  is  not  responsible  for  a  loss 


30.  Libby  v.  Maine  Central  R.  Co., 
(Me.)    26  Ail.  943,  wbere  an  extra- 
ordinary unprecedented   storm   which 
came  suddenly   and  lasted  about  two 
hours,  caused  the  washout  of  a  rail- 
road culvert  which  was  insuflQcient  to 
•carry  ofl"  one-third  of  the  water  which 
fell,  although  it  had  proved  sufficient 
for  more  than   forty  years;   Herring 
V.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   (Va.)   45 
S.  E.  322;   Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bridges,  85  Ala.  448,  11  Am.  St.  Rep. 
58,  38  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  136;   The 
Thomas  Newton,  41  Fed.  106;  Amer- 
ican  Express   Co.  v.   Smith,   33   Ohio 
St.   511,  31  Am.  Rep.  561;   Philadel- 
phia, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Anderson,  94  Pa. 
St.   351,    39   Am.   Rep.   787;    Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co,  V.  Manning,  23  Neb.  552, 
35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  618;  Withers 
V  North  Kent  R,  Co.  3  H.  &  N.  969 ; 
Tvouisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson, 
107  Ind.  442,  57  Am.  Rep.  120,  27  Am. 
A    Eng.    R.    Cas.    88;     Coosa    River 
Steamboat  Co.  v.  Barclay,  30  Ala.  120 
See  also,  Excuses  for  delay,  §  10,  chap. 
8. 

31.  International,    etc.,    R.    Oo.    ▼. 
Bergman,   (Tex.  Civ.  App.)   64  S.  W. 


999,  where  it  appeared  that  the  place 
of  storage  was  safe  under  usual  con- 
ditions, and  that,  though  possible  to 
have  delivered  them  on  the  morning 
of  the  storm,  the  bad  weather  de- 
terred the  drayman  and  it  did  not 
appear  that  there  was  any  safer 
place  after  the  danger  became  appar- 
rent,  the  company  was  not  liable. 

What  is  not  a  sufficient  defense. — 
Where  the  motion  to  set  asiide  a  de- 
fault judgment  in  an  action  against 
a  carrier  for  goods  destroyed  in 
transportation  did  not  state  that  the 
flood  causing  the  damage  was  unpre- 
cedented, but  that  it  was  an  extra- 
ordinary and  unusual  rainfall  or 
flood,  it  was  properly  overruled, 
since  it  did  not  state  a  sufficient  de- 
fense; it  being  the  duty  of  railroads 
in  constructing  their  roadbeds  to 
guard  against  floods  which  may  be 
anticipated,  though  some  may  be  ex- 
traordinary and  unusual.  Missouri, 
etc.,  R.  Oo.  V,  Davidson,  25  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  134,  60  S.  W.  278. 

32.  West  V.  The  Berlin,  3  Iowa,  552 ; 
Bork  V.  Norton,  2  McLean  (U.  S.) 
422;  Bowman  v.  Teal,  23  Wend.   (N. 


LIABILITY  FOR  LOSS  OR  DAMAGE. 


315 


caused  bj  the  breaking  of  a  rail  caused  by  the  exceeding  cold 
weather  which  is  the  result  of  a  vis  major  against  which  no  prud- 
ence could  have  guarded.^  The  freezing  of  goods  of  a  perishable 
nature  while  en  route  is  the  act  of  God,  for  which  the  carrier  is 
not  liable,  unless  caused  by  unnecessary  delay  in  transporting 
them,  or  their  careless  exposure  to  the  cold.^*  To  render  a  common 
carrier  liable  for  the  destruction  of  goods  by  freezing  while  in 
transit,  under  a  bill  of  lading  exempting  it  from  damages  for 
freezing,  it  must  not  only  be  guilty  of  unreasonably  delaying  trans- 
portation, but  the  goods  must  have  been  frozen  during  the  delay 
and  because  of  it.^^  The  carrier  is  liable  where  the  goods  are 
frozen  owing  to  its  negligence  in  shipping  promptly  at  a  season 
of  the  year  when  a  freezing  spell  might  reasonably  be  antici- 
pated;*® but  it  is  not  liable,  where  fruit,  for  example,  was  de- 
livered to  it  for  shpiment  when  the  temperature  was  below  freezing 
point,  for  negligence  in  forwarding  the  fruit  on  the  day  of  receipt. 


Y.)  306;  Parsons  v.  Hardy,  14  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  215;  Harris  v.  Rand,  4  N. 
H.  259;  Crosby  v.  Fitch,  12  Conn. 
410. 

33.  McPadden  v.  New  York  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  44  N.  Y.  478,  4  Am.  Rep.  705. 

34.  Vail  V.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  63  Mo. 
230,  and  the  burden  was  held  to  be 
on  the  owner  to  show  such  careless 
exposure;  Wolf  v.  American  Express 
Co.,  43  Mo.  422,  97  Am.  Dec.  406; 
Swetland  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 
Mass.  276,  a  conductor  whose  freight 
train  is  obstructed  by  a  snow  storm 
so  that  he  must  leave  a  part  of  the 
cars  without  shelter,  is  not  bound  as. 
a  matter  of  law  to  take  forward  a 
car  that  he  knows  contains  articles 
which  will  be  injured  by  freezing, 
rather  than  other  cars  of  whose  con- 
tents he  is  ignorant;  Wing  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Hilt.  (N.  Y.) 
235. 


35.  Siebrecht  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  21  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  615,  48  N. 
Y.  Supp.  3,  affg.  20  Misc.  Rep.  (N. 
Y.)    730,  46  N.  Y.  Supp.  1100. 

36.  Hewett  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
63  Iowa  611,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Oas. 
658;  Fox  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  148 
Mass.  220,  19  N.  E.  222,  1  L.  R.  A. 
702;  McGraw  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  18  W.  V.  361,  41  Am.  Rep.  696, 
9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  188. 

Proof  of  negligent  delay  by  a  sub- 
sequent carrier,  and  that  without  it 
the  injury  would  have  been  avoided, 
is  a  complete  answer  to  an  action 
seeking  to  hold  the  first  carrier  re- 
sponsible by  reason  of  his  delay,  for 
the  injury  to  fruit  by  freezing  while 
in  custody  of  such  subsequent  car- 
rier. Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Bur- 
rows,  33   Mich.  6. 


316  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

instead  of  retaining  it  in  storage  until  warmer  weather. ^^  A 
carrier  is  liable  for  loss  by  freezing  where  the  goods  are  detained 
for  excessive  charges.^^  A  carrier  which  receives  cars  which  it 
knows,  or  should  know,  contain  perishable  goods,  and,  on  account 
of  the  impassable  condition  of  its  own  road,  which  runs  through 
a  warm  section,  without  notifying  the  shipper,  ships  them  in  the 
dead  of  winter  by  a  northern  route,  during  transit  on  which  the 
goods  are  frozen  and  destroyed,  is  liable  in  damages  for  the  value 
of  the  goods.^*  A  common  carrier  is  not  as  a  matter  of  law,  free 
from  negligence  for  the  loss  by  freezing  of  fruit  carried  over  its 
road,  although  it  does  what  is  usual  and  customary  for  other  car- 
riers to  do  under  similar  circumstances.^'*  An  action  will  lie 
against  a  carrier  for  non-delivery,  although  the  goods  are  partially 
injured,  and  that  by  the  act  of  God,  and  it  can  have  no  deduction 
from  the  value  of  goods  lost  by  it  and  never  delivered,  for  damages 
caused  by  the  act  of  God.^^  Such  a  defense,  if  the  goods  had  been 
tendered  and  delivered,  would  only  go  in  mitigation  of  damages.*^ 
Where  goods  are  injured  in  the  possession  of  a  carrier  by  act  of 
God,  the  carrier  is  not  liable,  unless  its  negligence  concurred  in 
causing  the  injury.^^     It  is  not  liable  when  such  injury  was  not 

37.  Tucker  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  consignor    has    himself    selected    the 

11  Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)    366,  32  N.  Y.  time  of  shipment." 

Snpp.  1,  wherein  the  court  said:  "As  38.  Milton  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

carrier,    it    agreed    to    transport   the  1  Colo.  App.  307,  29  Pac.  22. 

goods,   and   its   duty   with   regard   to  39.  Pierce  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co., 

their   shipment  called   for   reasonable  120  Cal.  156,  47  Pac.  874,  40  L.  R.  A. 

expedition   in  forwarding  them  after  350,  7  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  564, 

their  receipt,  with  perhaps  some  duty  affd.  52  Pac.  302,  40  L.  R,  A.  354,  10 

of  greater  expedition  in  the  case  of  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  88. 

perishable    goods,    and    unreasonable  40.  Hinton   v.   Eastern   R.    Co.,    72 

delay  rendered  it  liable  for  resulting  Minn.  339,  75  N.  W.  373,  11  Am.  & 

damages,  (Tierney  v.  New  York  Cent.,  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  125. 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y.  305),  but  it  is  41.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woot- 

no  part  of  the  law  of  this  state  that  en,  87  Ga.  203,  13  S.  E.  509. 

a  carrier  should,  in  the  course  of  his  42.  Houston,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Harn, 

duty  as   such,   assume   the   functions  44  Tex.  628. 

of   a  warehouseman   for   the  purpose  43.  Ferguson  v.  Southern  Ry.   Co., 

of  delaying  transit  of  goods  after  the  91  S.  C.  61,  74  S.  E.  129. 


LIABILITY  FOR  LOSS   OR  DAMAGE.  3I7 

contributed  to  by  any  negligence  of  the  carrier/*  A  storm  of  •un- 
usual severity  constitutes  an  act  of  God,  relieving  a  railway  com- 
pany from  liability  for  injury  to  freight.*^  The  destruction  by 
the  elements  of  property  in  the  possession  of  a  carrier  does  not 
relieve  it  from  liability  unless  caused  by  some  irresistible  super- 
human cause.*®  A  carrier  is  liable  for  loss  of  goods  which  he  un- 
dertakes to  carry,  irrespective  of  its  fault,  if  it  does  not  occur  by 
act  of  God  or  the  public  enemies.*'  An  injury  cannot  be  said  to  be 
the  act  of  God  which,  under  any  fair  view,  can  be  attributed  to 
the  negligence  of  man.**  An  agreement  by  a  railroad  to  transport 
goods  from  one  station  to  another  within  a  certain  time  does  not 
make  the  carrier  an  absolute  insurer  of  the  goods,  but  their  destruc- 
tion within  the  prescribed  time  by  an  act  of  God  will  excuse  non- 
delivery." The  Interstate  Commerce  Act,  section  20,  as  amended, 
does  not  make  common  carriers  liable  for  loss  or  injury  due  to  an 
act  of  God  or  the  public  enemy. ^*^  Under  the  Carmack  amend- 
ment, Act  June  29,  1906,  section  7,  to  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Act,  section  20,  a  carrier  is  not  excused  from  liability  for  destruc- 
tion of  goods  by  flood,  unless  it  shows  some  activity  in  protecting 
them  as  necessity  arises.^^ 

44.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Ck).  v.  Texas  Star  of  the  country,  and  does  not  include 
Flour  Mills,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  143  S.  mobs.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  City 
W.  1179,  a  carrier  is  not  required  to  of  Cliieago,  242  111.  178,  89  N.  E. 
procure  cars  of  sufficient  strength  to  1022,  aff'g  judg.  144  111.  App.  293. 
withstand  a  storm  which  it  cannot  48.  Georgia,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Bar- 
reasonably  anticipate  as  likely  Ix)  oc-  field,  1  Ga.  App.  203,  58  S.  E.  236. 
cur.  See   also   Central   of   Ga.   Ry.   Oo.  v. 

45.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Oo.  v.  Mc-  Hall,  124  Ga.  322,  52  S.  E.  679,  4 
Kenzie,  5  Ala,  App.  605,  59  So.  345.  L.   R.  A.    (N.   S.)    898,   110  Am.   St. 

46.  Stockton  Lumber  Co.  v.  Cali-  Rep.  170;  Savannah,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v. 
fornia  Nav.  &  Improvement  Co.,  10  Commercial  Guano  Co.,  103  Ga.  590, 
Cal.  App.  197,   101   Pac.   541.  30  S.  E.  555. 

47.  Heyman  v.  Stryker,  116  N.  Y.  49.  Sauter  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  Ry. 
Supp.    638.  Co.,   78  Kan.   331,  97  Pac.   434. 

The    term    "  public    enemy,"    under  50.  Cleveland,     etc.,     Ry.     Co.     v. 

the  rule  that  a  carrier   is  liable   for  Hayes,  —  Ind.  — ,  102  N.  E.  34. 

the  loss  of  goods  except  by  the  act  of  51.  National  Rice  Milling  Co.  v. 
God  or  the  public  enemy,  means    enemy 


318 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


§  4.  Proximate  cause  of  loss  or  injury. 

The  act  of  God  which  would  excuse  a  common  carrier  for  loss 
of  or  injury  to  goods,  must  be  the  immediate  or  proximate,  and  not 
the  remote,  cause  of  the  loss."  But  it  is  not  essential  to  the  exemp- 
tion of  a  carrier  from  liability  for  the  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods 
during  their  transportation,  that  the  damages  result  solely  from 
any  one  of  the  exceptional  causes,  such  as  the  act  of  God  or  a 
public  enemy,  or  the  sole  fault  of  the  owner,  it  not  being  liable 
if  two  or  all  of  such  causes  combine  to  produce  the  injury,  if  the 
carrier  itself  is  without  fault."  Where  a  common  carrier  merely 
fails  to  make  prompt  delivery  of  goods,  and  they  are  thereby  lost 
in  an  unprecedented  storm,  it  will  be  protected  from  liability,  the 
act  of  God,  and  not  its  negligence,  being  the  proximate  cause." 
A  common  carrier  is  not  liable  for  injury  to  a  shipper's  goods  by 
a  fire,  for  which  it  was  not  responsible,  although  the  goods  were 
exposed  to  injury  by  negligent  delay  in  transmission,  as  the  delay 


New  Orleans  &  N.  E.  R.  Co.,  132  La. 
615,   61   So.   708. 

Where  an  unprecedented  flood  was 
threatened  as  the  result  of  a  general 
storm,  it  was  the  carrier's  duty  to 
exercise  unusual  care  to  see  that  a 
car  loaded  with  lime,  likely  to  be- 
come ignited  by  water,  be  kept  re- 
mo\'ed  a  safe  distance  from  cars 
loaded  with  rice  belonging  to  the 
plaintiff.     Id. 

Inaccuracy  in  a  weather  bureau's 
forecast  is  no  defense,  where  the  car- 
rier showed  no  reasonable  activity 
to  protect  the  shipment  after  being 
warned  of  the  impending  flood.     Id. 

52.  King  V.  Shepherd,  3  Story  (U. 
S.)  349;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Barnes,  2  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  574; 
Lepford  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 
Rich.  L.  (S.  C.)  409,  a  carrier  is  not 
liable  for  a  loss  occasioned  by  delay 
attributable  to  the  act  of  God,  but 


is  liable  for  the  injury  'to  and  depre- 
ciation of  the  goods  caused  by  bad 
handling,  which  was  not  a  necessity 
or   unavoidable   consequence. 

53.  McCarthy  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  102  Ala.  193,  48  Am.  St.  Rep.  29, 
61  Am.  &  Eng.  C.  Cas.  178,  14  So. 
370,  the  carrier  is  liable  for  a  loss 
resulting  from  the  combined  fault  of 
the  carrier  and  owner. 

54.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bergman,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  64  S.  W. 
999. 

Where  wheat  shipped  by  plaintiff 
over  the  defendant  railroad  was  dam- 
aged, and  a  part  of  it  totally  de- 
stroyed, in  an  unprecedented  storm, 
which  occurred  while  the  wheat  was 
still  in  the  possession  of  the  rail- 
road company,  the  railroad  had  been 
guilty  of  negligence  in  failing  to  place 
ithie  wheat  on  the  proper  elevator 
tracks  promptly,  so  that  it  could  be 


LIABILITY    FOR  LOSS  OR  DAIklAGE.  gl^ 

cannot  be  deemed  the  proximate  cause  of  the  injury.^*  Whether 
the  loss  of  goods,  intrusted  to  a  common  carrier,  is  to  be  attributed 
to  inevitable  necessity,  not  arising  from  the  intervention  of  man, 
and  which  no  human  prudence  could  have  avoided,  is  a  question 
of  fact  for  the  jury.^  Where  a  railroad  moves  a  burning  car  of 
cotton  to  save  its  own  property,  such  action,  and  not  the  original 
fire,  is  the  proximate  cause  of  the  burning  of  other  property  near 
which  the  car  is  moved."  The  negligence  of  a  railroad  company 
in  carrying  high  proof  spirits  with  the  barrel  in  a  broken  condition 
was  not  the  proximate  cause  of  a  fire  destroying  the  spirits,  which 
originated  in  some  way  after  the  consignee  had  taken  possession 
and  when  his  agents  were  entering  the  car  to  remove  the  goods.* 
Where  goods  were  delivered  by  a  railroad  company  to  a  transfer 
or  drayage  company  and  destroyed  by  fire  while  in  its  possession, 
the  fire  was  the  proximate  cause  of  the  loss,  and  the  drayage  com- 
pany could  not  escape  liability  on  the  ground  that  the  consignee 
had  delayed  making  payment  of  drafts  attached  to  the  bill  of 
lading,  and  thereby  delayed  surrender  of  the  goods  to  the  transfer 
company.^®  Where  the  car  load  of  freight,  when  burned,  was 
standing  on  an  industrial  switch  leading  to  the  shipper's  ware- 
house, and  the  fire  was  started  by  a  coal  oil  stove  in  the  ofiice  of 
the  warehouse  being  turned  over  by  one  of  the  shipper's  employes, 
firing  the  warehouse,  from  which  the  flames  spread  to  the  car, 
destroying  its  contents,  the  act  of  the  shipper's  employe  in  starting 

unloaded,  and  in  other  ways:  and,  but  34  U.  S.  App.  404,  71  Fed.  4S1,  19  C. 

/for    its    negligence,    the    oars    would  C.  A.  88;   Morrison  v.  Davis,  20  Pa. 

probably    have    been    unloaded    when  St.  171,  57  Am.  Dec.  701,  note, 

the  storm  occurred,  it  was  held,  that  56.  Elliott    v.    Russell,    10    Johns, 

the  s.torm  was  the  proximate  and  the  (N.  Y.)   1,  6  Am.  Dec.  306. 

company's     negligence     the     remote,  57.  Latta  v.  New  Orleans  &  N.  W. 

cause  of  the  injury  to  the  wheat,  and  Ry.  Co.,  131  La    272,  59  So.  250. 

the   company   was   not   liable.     Hunt  58.  Rothchild     Bros.    v.    Northern 

Bros.  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,    (Tex.  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  68  Wash.  527,  123  Pac. 

Civ.  App.)  74  S.  W.  69.  1011. 

55.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Millsaps,  59.  Arkadelphia     Milling      Co.     t. 

76  Miss.  855,  25  So.  672,  71   Am.  St.  Smoker    Merchandise    Co.,    100    Ark. 

Rep.  542 ;  Thomas  v.  Lancaster  Mills,  37,  139  S.  W.  680. 


320  THE  LAW  OF  CAKRIERS. 

the  fire  was  the  proximate  cause  of  the  loss  of  the  car;  it  then 
being  in  the  possession  of  the  shipper,  and  not  of  the  carrier.®" 
The  failure  of  a  carrier  to  move  a  car  load  of  lumber,  after  being 
made  ready  for  shipment  and  notice  thereof,  renders  it  liable  for 
the  loss  of  the  lumber  bj  its  subsequent  destruction  in  the  burning 
of  adjacent  property  without  the  carrier's  fault.®^  Where  plain- 
tiff's goods,  while  in  the  custody  of  defendant  railroad  company, 
were  destroyed  by  a  fire  which  originated  without  defendant's 
fault,  but  which  might  have  been  extinguished  before  the  goods 
were  destroyed,  if  defendant  had  used  ordinary  care,  defendant's 
negligence  was  the  cause  of  the  loss.®^  Though  a  carrier  of  goods 
was  negligent  in  failing  to  forward  goods  shipped,  it  is  not  liable 
for  the  loss  of  the  goods  by  fire,  where  it  was  not  negligent  with 
respect  to  the  fire,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  that  the  negligence 
in  failing  to  forward  the  goods  was  the  proximate  cause  of  the 
loss.^  Where  a  railroad  permits  consignees  of  produce  to  sell  it 
from  cars  in  a  yard  known  as  the  "  market  yard,"  but  does  not 
permit  any  one  consignee  to  have  more  than  three  cars  at  a  time 
in  the  market,  and  other  cars  are  kept  in  another  yard  until  a  car 
is  emptied  and  released,  a  consignee  cannot  recover  for  a  loss  from 
deterioration  of  produce  in  the  storage  yard,  where  delay  in  de- 
livery to  the  market  yard  was  due  to  the  neglect  of  the  consignee 
in  emptying  the  cars/*  Where,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  of 
corn  for  delivery  to  an  elevator  for  drying,  the  evidence  showed 
that  the  corn  would  not  have  spoiled  if  it  had  been  turned  into  the 
elevator  on  arrival,  the  carrier  could  not  relieve  itself  from  lia- 
bility on  the  ground  that  the  corn  spoiled  in  consequence  of  a 
change  of  climate.^     A  carrier  is  liable  for  loss  of  goods  where, 

60.  American    T^ad    Pencil    Co.    v.       v.  Carolina  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Co.,  137  N. 
Nashville,  etc.,  Ry.,  124  Tenn.  57,  13-1       C.  278,  49  S.  E.   208. 

S.  W.  613.  64.  Ivaughlin  Bros.  Co.  v.  Philadel- 

61.  Greene  v.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  phia  &   R.   Ry.   Co.,   225   Pa.   540,   74 
163  Ala.  138,  50  So.  937.  Atl.  418. 

62.  Peerless  Mfg.  Co.  v.  New  York,  65.  W.  R.  Hall  Grain  Co.  v.  Louia- 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  N.  H.  328,  61  AtL  511.  ville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  148  Mo.  App.  308, 

63.  General   Fire   Extinguisher  Co.  128  S.  W.  42. 


LIABILITY  FOR  LOSS   OR  DAMAGE.  321 

though  improperly  directed  they  would  have  reached  their  in- 
tended destination  but  for  the  changing  of  the  directions  by  the 
carrier's  agent/^  As  between  a  failure  without  proper  cause  to 
deliver  goods  from  a  freight  depot  upon  demand  at  a  time  when 
there  was  no  reasonable  ground  to  apprehend  damage  by  flood, 
and  an  unprecedented  flood  which  a  day  later  submerged  the  depot 
and  damaged  the  goods,  the  flood,  an  act  of  God,  and  not  the  fail- 
ure to  deliver,  was  the  proximate  cause  of  the  damage."  Where 
the  flood  which  injured  a  shipment  of  eggs  appeared  so  suddenly 
and  with  such  magnitude  and  force  that  its  advent  could  not  be 
anticipated  nor  its  consequences  averted  by  the  exercise  of  human 
care  and  foresight,  it  was  the  proximate  cause  of  such  injury,  and 
negligent  delay,  if  any,  of  the  carrier  in  transporting  the  eggs, 
whereby  they  were  exposed  to  the  flood,  was  but  the  remote  cause,^ 
A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  a  loss  of  property  in  shipment  through 
an  act  of  God,  which  could  not  reasonably  have  been  foreseen,  al- 
though, but  for  its  previous  negligence,  by  which  the  shipment  was 
delayed,  the  property  would  have  escaped  the  danger,  and  the  loss 
would  not  have  occurred.  In  such  case  the  negligence  is  not  the 
proximate  cause  of  the  injury.'^  Delay  of  a  carrier  in  transport- 
ing goods,  whereby  they  come  in  the  path  of  a  flood,  and  are  de- 
stroyed by  the  act  of  God,  is  not  a  proximate  cause  of  their  in- 
jury.'^'*   Negligent  delay  of  a  carrier  in  moving  goods,  not  so  un- 

68.  Weaver  v.  Southern  Ry.  Oo,  135  Oo.,  117  Mb.  App.  453,  93  S.  W.  851. 

Mo.  App.  210,  115  S.  W.  500.  While  a   carrier   is   re-spcnsible   for 

67.  Atchison,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  an  injury  caused  by  the  concurrence 
Henry,  78  Kan.  490,  97  Pac.  465,  18  of  its  negligence  with  an  act  of  God, 
L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.)    177.  yet   such    injury   must   be   a   natural 

68.  Lightfoot  V.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  and  probable  consequence  of  the  ntgli- 
R.  Co.,  126  Mo.  App.  532,  104  S.  W.  gence,  and  not  an  unusual  and  unan- 
482.  ticipated  consequence,  such  as  an  in- 

69.  Emipire  State  Cattle  Co.  v.  jury  to  goods  caused  by  an  unprece- 
Atchison.  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  135  Fed.  135,  dented  and  unforeseen  flood,  to  which 
judg.  aff'd  147  Fed.  457,  77  C.  C.  A.  the  carrier's  negligent  delay  in  mov- 
601,  and  147  Fed.  463,  77  C,  C.  A.  ing  the  goods  subjected  them.  Mof- 
507.  fa-tt  Commission  Oo.  v.  Union  P;ic.  R. 

70.  Elam  v.  St.  Louis  &   S.  F.  R.  Co.,  113  Mo.  App.  544,  88  S.  W.  117. 

21 


ooo  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

reasonable  as  to  amount  to  a  conversion,  will  not  render  it  liable 
for  the  loss  of  goods  after  tliej  have  been  carried  to  their  destina- 
tion and  are  there  destroyed  by  an  act  of  God  before  their  de- 
livery.^^  Where  the  negligence  of  the  carrier  operates  as  a  con- 
tributive  element  proximate  to  injury  to  goods,  even  though  such 
injury  is  to  some  extent  caused  by  the  act  of  God,  the  carrier  is 
liable  as  though  the  negligence  was  the  entire  cause  of  the  loss.^^ 
Where  a  consignment  of  flour  was  delivered  to  a  carrier  for  ship- 
ment and  was  retained  four  days  before  being  forwarded,  the  car- 
rier was  liable  for  the  damage  caused  by  a  cyclone  on  the  morning 
of  the  next  day  after  its  arrival  at  its  destination,  since  the  negli- 
gence of  the  carrier,  resulting  in  the  delay  at  the  place  of  ship- 
ment, continued  to  be  an  active  cause  until  the  consignee  had  a 
reasonable  time  after  their  arrival  within  which  to  remove  the 
goods.'^  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  damages  to  goods  while 
in  transit  because  the  cars  were  not  iced,  if  the  plaintiffs  knew 
or  had  notice  that  their  contract  for  icing  was  not  with  the  carrier, 
the  carrier  is  not  liable,  even  though  the  bill  of  lading  was  given 
by  it  and  the  money  for  icing  the  car  was  paid  to  its  agent.^^  The 
giving  of  an  incorrect  notice  of  delivery  by  the  carrier  to  the  con- 
signee was  not  the  proximate  cause  of  the  loss,  where  goods  were 
refused  by  the  consignee  on  the  ground  that  they  had  never  been 
ordered.^^  Misrepresentation  by  a  shipper  as  to  the  contents  of 
a  shipment  in  order  to  obtain  a  lower  rate  does  not  prevent  a  re- 
covery for  loss  of  the  shipment,  where  the  misrepresentation  does 
not  contribute  to  the  loss.'^  The  failure  of  a  carrier  to  exercise 
reasonable  care  in  giving  notice  of  the  arrival  of  perishable  freight 

71.  Rodgera   v.   Missouri    Pac.   Ry.  74.  Connell   Bros.  v.   Southern   Ry. 
Co.,  —  Kan.  — ,  88  Pac.  885.  Co.,  —  N.  C.  — ,  56  S.  E.  559. 

72.  Gratiot    Street   Warehouse   Co.  75.  Langsdorf  v.  New  York   Cent., 
V.    Missouri,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.,    124   Mo.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  142  N.  Y.  Supp.  336. 
App.  545,  102  S.  W.  11.  76.  Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    T.    J. 

73.  Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  J.  A.  Phillips  &  Co.,  —  Miss.  — ,  60   So. 
Elliott  &  Son,   150  Ala.   381,  43  So.  572. 

738,  9  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.)   1264. 


LIABILITY  FOR  LOSS  OR  DAMAGE.  323 

has  "been  held  to  be  the  proximate  cause  of  an  injury  to  the 
freight."  Defendant  carrier  was  held  not  liable  for  loss  sustained 
by  plaintiffs  on  a  car  of  cabbage,  where  the  consignee's  refusal  to 
accept  the  cabbage  was  not  because  of  the  carrier's  error  in  adding 
an  icing  charge  to  the  expense  bill.^^  Where  a  carrier  fails  to 
forward  goods  delivered  for  shipment  promptly,  and  carelessly 
delays  the  shipment,  and  the  goods  are  damaged  in  transit  by  an 
act  of  God  which  would  not  otherwise  have  caused  the  damage,  he 
is  liable ;  the  unreasonable  delay  being  the  proximate  or  concurring 
cause  thereof  whether  the  goods  are  perishable  or  not.''' 

]  5.  Loss  or  injury  by  the  public  enemy. 

The  common  law  liability  of  a  common  carrier,  as  an  insurer 
of  goods  carried,  did  not  extend  to  losses  caused  by  the  acts  of 
public  enemies;  and  the  term  enemies  was  understood  to  mean 
the  public  enemies  of  the  country  of  the  carrier,  and  not  of  the 
owner  of  the  goods,  and  did  not  include  thieves,  robbers,  or  those 
who  engaged  in  mobs,  riots  or  insurrections.  The  reasons  of  the 
rule  were  that  it  would  impose  upon  the  carrier  a  great  hardship 
to  compel  him  to  pay  for  losses  for  which  there  was  no  remedy 
against  those  who  brought  the  loss  upon  him,  and  that  there  could 
be  little  if  any  danger  of  his  combining  with  the  common  enemy 
to  defraud  the  owner  of  the  goods ;  and  the  reasons  for  the  excep- 
tion from  the  rule  of  robbers,  rioters,  insurgents,  or  irresistible 
mobs,  were  that  the  carrier  might  have  a  remedy  against  them, 
and  tl^at  there  was  great  danger  of  collusion  between  them  and  the 
carrier  for  defrauding  the  owner  or  shipper  of  the  goods.  Losses 
by  thieves  or  robbers,  mobs  or  riots,  were,  therefore,  to  be  borne 
by  the  carrier  unless  by  contract  he  had  absolved  himself  from  such 
liability.     Pirates,  however,  were  regarded  as  the  common  enemy 

77.  Uber  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  79.  Bibb  Broom  Corn  Co.  v.  Atchi- 
151  Wis.  431.  138  N.  W.  57.  son,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  94  Minn.  269,   102 

78.  Freeman  v.  Quebedeaux,  (Tex.  N.  W.  709,  69  L.  R.  A.  509,  110  Am. 
Civ.  App.)    151  S.  W.  643.  St.  Rep.  361. 


324 


THE  LAW  OF  CARPaERS. 


of  all  mankind  and,  therefore,  within  the  term  public  enemies.*** 
The  general  rule  is  still  maintained  that  a  capture  by  public 
enemies  of  the  property  intrusted  to  a  common  carrier  releases 
him  from  all  further  obligations  respecting  it,  since  such  acts  puts 
it  out  of  his  power  to  do  what  he  engaged  to  do.*^  But  the  carrier 
is  bound  to  use  due  precaution  against  capture  and  due  diligence 
to  rescue  property  that  has  been  captured,  since,  although  it  is  not 
an  insurer  against  such  losses,  it  is  bound  to  reasonable  and  ordi- 
nary care  as  a  bailee.^^  Where  goods  were  taken  from  a  carrier 
by  an  officer  or  an  armed  force  of  the  Confederate  government  in 
the  civil  war,  it  was  held  in  a  number  of  cases  that  the  carrier 
was  not  liable  because  it  had  been  deprived  of  them  by  an  act  of 
the  public  enemy.*^    So  where  goods  were  taken  by  United  States 


80.  Russell  V.  Neiman,  17  Com.  B. 
(N.  S.)  163;  Coggs  v.  Bernard,  2  Ld. 
Raym.  909,  3  Salk.  11;  Lewis  v.  Lud- 
wick,  6  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  388;  Morse  v. 
Slue,  1  Ventris  190;  Pickering-  v. 
Barkley,  Style,  132;  Forward  v.  Pit- 
tard,  1  T.  R.  27;  Barclay  v.  CuvuUa 
of  Gana,  3  Doug.  389,  26  E.  C.  L. 
157. 

81.  Spaids  v.  New  York,  etc., 
Steamship  Co.,  3  Daly  (N.  Y.)  139; 
Clark  V.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  39  Mo.  184, 
90  Am.   Dec.   458. 

82.  Caldwell  v.  Southern  Express 
Co.,  1  Flipp.  (U.  S.)  85;  Spaids  v. 
New  York,  etc..  Steamship  Co.,  3  Daly 

(N.   Y.)    139;    Cheviot  v.   Brooks,    1 
Johns.   (N.  Y.)   369. 

83.  Hubbard  v.  Harnden  Express 
Co.,  10  R.  I.  244;  Lewis  v.  Ludwick, 
6  Ooldw.  (Tenn.)  368,  98  Am.  Dec. 
454;  Bland  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  1 
Duv.  (Ky.)  232,  85  Am.  Dec.  623; 
Frank  v.  Keith,  2  Bush.  (Ky.)  123; 
Wallace  v.  Sanders,  42  Ga.  486,  50 
Ga.  134;  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Harper,     29     Md.     330;     Keppel     v. 


Petersburg  R  Co.,  Chase's  Dec.  (U. 
S.)  167;  Porcher  v.  North  Eastern 
R.  Co.,  14  Rich.  L.    (S.  C.)    181. 

That  Confederates  were  not  pirates, 
but  public  enemies,  was  held  in  Dole 
V.  N.  E.  Insurance  Co.,  88  Mass.  373, 
and  as  to  Confederate  cruisers,  the 
court,  in  Gage  v.  Tirrell,  91  Mass. 
299,  said:  "If  they  can  be  regarded 
as  agents  ot  a.  de  facto  govern- 
ment engaged  in  an  actual  existing 
war  with  the  United  States,  then  the 
loss  happened  in  consequence  of  a 
seizure  by  a  public  enemy.  If  not, 
they  are  pirates,  and  pirates  are  per- 
ils of  the  seas  within  the  exception  of 
the  bill  of  lading." 

Where  goods  were  seized  or  de- 
stroyed by  Confederate  troops,  with- 
in Confederate  lines,  it  was  held  in 
Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Estes,  10  Lea 
(Tenn.)  749,  3  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
492,  that  the  carrier  was  not  liable, 
although  the  court  declined  to  hold 
that  it  was  the  act  of  a  public  enemy. 
It  was  said  to  be  a  loss  caused  by 
vis  major,   analagous   to  the  case  of 


LIABILITY  FOR  LOSS  OR  DAMAGE.  325 

troops  from  a  Confederate  carrier,  the  carrier  was  exonerated  on 
the  ground  that  they  were  taken  by  the  public  enemy."  An  order 
issued  by  a  regularly  constituted  military  authority  protected  the 
citizen  or  corporation  obeying  it,  as  where  a  railroad  company  was 
commanded  by  a  Confederate  general  to  transport  cotton,  which 
was  lost.*"  It  has  been  held  that  delay  in  the  transportation  of 
goods  which  is  caused  solely  by  a  mob,  or  the  interference  of  strik- 
ers and  their  confederates  with  the  operation  of  the  road,  will  not 
render  the  carrier  liable  at  common  law  to  make  good  losses  aris- 
ing from  a  decline  in  the  market  price,  or  from  deterioration  in 
their  quality  on  account  of  their  perishable  nature,  during  time 
of  transit.*^  In  Arkansas  it  has  been  held  that  a  mob  of  rioters 
is  not  a  public  enemy  within  the  exception  to  the  rule  that  makes 
a  common  carrier  an  insurer  of  goods  carried."  In  Illinois  it  has 
been  held  that  the  term  "  public  enemy,"  under  the  rule  that  a 
carrier  is  liable  for  the  loss  of  goods  except  by  act  of  God  or  the. 
public  enemy,  means  enemy  of  the  country,  and  does  not  include 

goods  taken  from  the  carrier  by  at-  86.  IMissouri   Pac.  R.    Co.  v.   Levi, 

tachment.      See   also   Nashville,    etc.,  4  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  8,  14  S.  W. 

R.  Co.  V.  Estis,  7  Heisk.   (Tenn.)   623.  1062;    Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Levi,   73 

84.  Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Wo-  Tex.  337,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  45,  42  Am. 
mack,  1  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  267;  Mc-  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  439,  revg.  (Tex.)  12 
Cranie  v.  Wood,  24  La.  Ann.  406;  S.  W.  677,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
Patterson  v.  North  Carolina  R.  Co.,  115.  See  also  Southern  Express  Co. 
64  N.  C.  147.  See  also  Caldwell  v.  v  Glenn,  16  Lea  (Tenn.)  472;  Bal- 
Southem  Express  Co.,  1  Flipp.  (U.  timore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Donnell,  49 
S.)    85.  Ohio  St.  489,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

85.  Railroad    v.    Hurst,    11    Heisk.  667. 

(Tenn.)   625.     But  even  where  a  rail-  87.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Nevill, 

road  company  is  not  in  the  free  exer-  60  Ark.  375,  30  S.  W.  425,  28  L.  R. 

else    of    its    franchises,    and    receives  A.  80.    See  also  Pacific  Express  Co.  v. 

property  for  transportation,  and  gives  Wallace,  60  Ark.  100,  61  Am.  &  Eng. 

the  ordinary   shipping   receipt,   -with-  R.  Cas.  170,  holding  that  a  common 

out  limiting  its  liability  or  undertak-  carrier  of  goods,  who  has  limited  his 

ing,  it  is  still  liable  as  a  common  car-  liability  to  that  of  a  warehouseman 

rier,     notwithstanding     military     or  for  goods  while  they  are  waiting  to 

other   control.     Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.  be  called  for,  is  not  liable  for  the  loss 

T,  Ashmead,  58  111.  487.  of  liquors  taken  from  its  storeroom 

bv  a  mob. 


320  '^^^  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

mobs.*'  In  Indiana  it  has  been  held  that  rioters  are  not  public 
enemies,  that  to  make  a  public  enemy  the  government  of  a  foreign 
country  must  be  at  war  with  the  United  States,  but  the  strict  lia- 
bility of  common  carriers,  where  they  are  without  fault  or  negli- 
gence, does  not  seem  to  extend  to  losses  from  delay  in  transporting 
live  stock  and  perishable  property,  though  such  delays  are  not 
caused  by  the  act  of  God  or  the  public  enemies.'®  In  New  York 
the  rule  has  been  laid  down,  in  respect  to  the  liability  of  a  railroad 
company  for  delay  in  the  transportation  and  delivery  of  good>.. 
that  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  a  delay  in  the  delivery  of  freight 
caused  by  the  unlawful  and  violent  conduct  of  strikers,  after  they 
have  abandoned  the  service  of  the  carrier.  There  is  no  absolute 
duty  resting  upon  the  carrier  to  deliver  goods  within  what  is  under 
ordinary  circumstances,  a  reasonable  time.  The  actual  circum- 
stances must  all  be  considered,  and  all  that  can  be  required  of  it 
is  the  exercise  of  due  care  to  forward  and  deliver  promptly.*'  In 
Illinois  it  has  been  held  that  where  the  employes  of  a  carrier  sud- 
denly refuse  to  work,  and  are  discharged,  and  delay  results  from 
the  failure  of  the  carrier  to  promptly  supply  their  places,  the  car- 
rier is  responsible  for  any  damage  caused  by  such  delay ;  but  where 
the  places  of  the  recusant  employes  are  promptly  supplied  by  other 
competent  men,  and  the  "  strikers  "  then  prevent  the  new  employes 
from  doing  duty  by  lawless  and  irresistible  violence,  the  carrier 
is  not  responsible  for  delay  caused  solely  by  such  lawless  violence. ^^ 
It  has  been  held  in  the  Federal  courts  that  where  goods  were 
shipped  under  a  bill  of  lading  exempting  the  carrier  from  loss  or 

88.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  City  90.  Geismer  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 
of  Chicago,  242  111.  178,  89  N.  E.  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  563,  55  Am.  Rep.  837, 
1022,  aff'g  144  111.  App.  293.  26  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  287,  7  N.  E. 

89.  Bartlett   v.   Pittsburg,   etc.,   R.  828,  revg.  34  Hun    (N.  Y.)    50. 

Co.,  94  Ind.  281,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  91.  Pittsburg,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Ha- 

Cas.    549;    Pittsburg,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  zen,  84  111.  36,  25  Am.  Re.p.  422.     S?e 

Hollowell,  65  Ind.  193.    See  also  Lake  also  Blackstock  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 

Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bennett,  89  Ind.  Co.,  20  N.  Y.  48;    Indianapolis,  etc., 

457;   White  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Coi^  R.  Co.  v.  Jungten,  10  111.  App.  2"5. 
19  Mo.  App.  400. 


TABILITY  FOR  LOSS  OR  DAMAGE.  327 

damage  bj  fire  and  thej  were  destroyed  by  a  mob,  in  the  absence 
of  proof  of  negligence  of  the  carrier  or  its  agent,  the  carrier  was 
not  liable.^^  Later  cases  have  held  that  where  a  carrier  received 
freight  for  shipment,  it  is  not  liable  for  delay  in  its  delivery  which 
is  caused  by  a  strike  of  its  employes,  accompanied  by  violence  and 
intimidation  of  such  character  as  cannot  be  overcome  by  the  com- 
pany or  controlled  by  the  civil  authorities  when  called  upon.^' 
These  cases,  while  seemingly  an  exception  to  the  rule  that  mere 
mobs,  riots  or  insurrections  are  not  acts  of  public  enemies,  are 
rather  based  upon  the  ground  that  such  acts  form  reasonable 
grounds  for  excusing  the  carrier  from  losses  occasioned  by  delay 
in  transportation  due  to  causes  over  which  it  had  no  control,  and 
must  be  distinguished  from  the  cases  where  an  absolute  loss  of  or 
injury  to  goods,  in  which  delay  is  not  a  factor,  has  been  sustained. 

§  6.  Seizure  under  legal  process. — Attachment. 

Where  goods  are  taken  out  of  the  carrier's  possession  under 
valid  legal  process,  such  as  attachment  or  execution,  or  the  carrier 
is  obliged  to  and  does  deliver  them  to  the  lawful  authorities  of  the 
place  where  the  goods  are,  either  in  transit,  or  waiting  delivery, 
or  the  carrier  fails  to  transport  and  deliver  them  because  of  the 
lawful  order  of  a  court  having  jurisdiction  of  the  subject-matter, 
the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  non-delivery,  the  process  or  order  of 
the  court  being  within  the  term  vis  major.^*    But  a  carrier  cannot 

92.  Wertheimer  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  pany's  line  where  such  railroad  wa3 
Co.,  17  Blatohf.  (U.  S.)  421;  Hall  v.  the  known  agency  for  the  transporta- 
Pennaylvania  R.  Co.,  1  Fed.  2^6,  3  tion  of  such  goods.  (Wibert  v.  New 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas,  274.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  N.  Y,  245.) 

93.  Haas  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.  R.  94.  U.  S. — Robinson  v.  Memphis, 
Co.  (Ga.)  7  S.  E.  629;  International  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Fed.  57;  Stiles  v. 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Tisdale,  (  (Tex.)  4  L.  R.  Davis,  1  Black  (U.  S.)  101,  17  L.  Ed. 
A.  545,  11  S.  W.  900;  Little  v.  Fargo,  33;  The  M.  M.  Chase,  37  Fed.  708; 
43  Hun  (N.  Y.),  233,  and  the  same  The  Idaho,  93  U.  S.  575;  Wells  v. 
defense  is  available  to  a  transporta-  Maine  S.  S.  Co.,  4  Cliff.  (U.  S.) 
tion  company  which  has  undertaken  232;  Post  v.  Kock,  30  Fed.  208;  Le- 
to  move  goods  over  the  railway  com*  mont  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 


328 


THE  LAW  OF  CAKRIERS. 


relieve  itself  from  responsibility  for  failure  to  deliver  property 
consigned,  by  simply  showing  that  it  was  taken  from  its  custody 
under  valid  legal  process;  but  must  also  show  that  it  promptly 
gave  notice  of  that  fact  to  the  owner.^ 


A  seizure  under  legal 


Fed.  920.  See  Adams  Express  Co.  v. 
Mullins,  212  U.  S.  311,  29  Sup.  Ct. 
381,  53  L,  Ed.  525. 

N.  Y. — Speigel  v.  Pacific  Mail 
Steamship  Co.,  26  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.) 
414,  56  N.  Y.  Supp.  171;  Bliven  v. 
Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  36  N.  Y.  403, 
3  Transcr.  App.  (N.  Y.)  179;  Scran- 
ton  V.  Bank,  24  N.  Y".  424;  Western 
Transportation  Co.  v.  Barber,  56  N. 
Y.  544;  Roberts  v.  Stuyvesant  Safe 
Deposit  Co.,  123  N.  Y.  57,  25  N.  E. 
294;  Van  Winkle  v.  U.  S.  Mail  Steam- 
ship Co.,  37  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  122;  Liv- 
ingston V.  Miller,  48  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
'  232,  16  St.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  71;  Rogers 
V.  Weir,  34  N.  Y.  463;  Barnard  v. 
Kobbe,  54  N.  Y.  516;  Bates  v.  Stan- 
ton, 1  Duer  (N.  Y.)  79;  Edson  v. 
Weston,  7  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  78;  Mierson 
V.  Hope,  2  Swe«ny   (N.  Y.)   561. 

Ga. — Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Heymann, 
118  Ga.  616,  45  S.  E.  491;  Southern 
Express  Co,  v.  Sottile  Bros.,  134  Ga. 
40,  67  S.  E.  414,  28  L.  R.  A.  N.  S. 
139,  even  though  the  law  be  uncon- 
stitutional, it  nerver  having  been  ju- 
dicially declared  so;  Savannah,  etc,  R. 
Co.  V.  Wilcox,  48  Ga.  432,  11  Am.  Ry. 
Rep.  375;  Wallace  v.  Matthews,  39 
Ga.  617,  99  Am.  Dec.  473. 

Cal. — ^Hayden  v.  Davis,  9  Cal.  573. 

N.  H.—Rett  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
69  N.  H.  139,  44  Atl.  910;  Johnson 
V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  44  N.  H.  626. 

Conn. — Osgood  v.  Carver,  43  Conn. 
24,    30. 

Minn. — See  Thomas  v.  Northern 
Pac.  Express  Co.,  73  Minn.  185. 


Or. — See  Coos  Bay,  etc.,  Nav.  Co.  v, 
Siglin,  34  Or.  80. 

Ind. — Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  v.  Dore- 
myer,  20  Ind.  App.  605,  50  N.  E.  497, 
67  Am.  St.  Rep.  264;  Ohio,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Yohe,  51  Ind.  181,  19  Am.  Rep. 
727. 

Mass. — Adams  v.  Soott,  104  Mass. 
164.  But  see  Edwards  v.  White  Line 
Transit  Co.,  104  Mass.  163 ;  French  v. 
Star  Union  Transp.  Co.,  134  Mass. 
288. 

Mich. — Pingree  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  66  Mich.  143,  33  N.  W. 
298,  11  Am.  St.  Rep.  479,  although 
the  writ  does  not  specify  the  par- 
ticular  property  levied  on. 

Mo. — Landa  v.  Hoick,  129  Mo.  663 ; 

A.  C.  L.  Hasse  &  Sons  Fish  Co.  v. 
Merchants'  Despatch  Transp.  Co.,  143 
Mo.  App.  42,  122  S.  W.  362. 

N.  i/ea;.— ^acVeagh  v.  Atchison, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  N.  Mex.  205,  18  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Oas.  654,  5  Pac.  457. 

Or. — Jewett  v.  Olsen,  18  Or.  419,  17 
Am.  St.  Rep.  745,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  435,  23  Pac.  262. 

Pa. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Da- 
vis, (Pa.)  12  Atl.  335,  32  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  563. 

F<.— Burton  v.  Wilkinson,  18  Vt. 
186,  46  Am.  Dec.  145. 

Eng. — Verrall  v.  Robinson,  5  Tyr. 
1069,  4  D.  P.  C.  242;  Wilson  v.  An- 
derton,  1  B.  &  Ad.  450,  2  E.  C.  L. 
426;  Sheridan  v.  New  Quay  Co.,  4  C. 

B.  N.  S.  618,  93  E.  C.  L.  618. 

95.  Speigel  v.  Pacific  Mail  Steam- 
Bhip  Co.,  26  Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)    414, 


LIABILITY   FOR  LOSS   OE,  DAMAGE. 


329 


process  will  excuse  a  common  carrier  from  delivering  to  the  owner 
goods  intrusted  to  its  care  for  shipment,  although  the  owner  was 
not  the  attachment  defendant.^     But  a  seizure  of  property  in  the 


56  N.  Y.  Supp.  171;  Bliven  v.  Hud- 
eon  River  R.  Co.,  36  N.  Y.  403,  aifg. 
35  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  188;  and  other  N. 
Y.  cases  cited  under  preceding  note; 
Robinson  v.  ^lempbis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 
Fed.  57;  Southern  Express  Co.  v. 
Sottile  Bros.,  134  Ga.  40,  67  S.  E.  414, 
28  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  139;  Ohio,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Yohe,  51  Ind.  181,  19  Am.  Rep. 
727;  Jewett  v.  Ol&en,  18  Or.  419,  17 
Am.  St.  Rep.  745,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  435;  Merz  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W. 
Ry.  Co.,  86  Minn.  33,  90  N.  W.  7; 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Donnell, 
49  Ohio  St.  489;  Lemont  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Fed.  920;  The  M.  M. 
Chase,  37  Fed.  708;  MacVeagh  v. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  N.  Mex.  205, 
18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  655,  5  Pac. 
457;  Frank  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  9  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  129,  Taugher  v.  Northern 
Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  21  N.  D.  Ill,  129  N.  W. 
747. 

A  common  carrier  in  whose  hands 
goods  shipped  are  attached  discharges 
its  duty  to  the  consignor  by  giving 
notice  of  the  attachment  to  the  lat- 
ter's  husband,  having  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing in  his  possession,  since  the  car- 
rier has  the  right  to  presume  from 
such  possession  that  the  husband  is 
the  agent  of  the  consignor,  without 
further  inquiry  as  to  how  or  by  what 
means  he  acquired  such  possession. 
Furman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81 
Iowa  540,  46  N.  W.  1049,  45  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  385;  Id.,  57  Iowa  42,  6 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  280;  62  Iowa  395, 
23  Am  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  730,  68  Iowa, 
219. 


96.  Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dore- 
meyer,  20  Ind.  App.  605,  67  Am.  St. 
Rep.  264,  50  N.  E.  497;  Landa  v. 
Hoick,  129  Mo.  663;  Stiles  v.  Davis, 
1  Black  (U.  S.)  101;  Furman  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Iowa  540,  46  N. 
W.  1049,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  345. 
It  might  be  otherwise,  if  the  sheriflF 
had  merely  levied  an  attachment,  but 
not  taken  possession  of  the  goods. 
Rogers  v.  Weir,  34  N.  Y.  463. 

It  has  been  held  in  Massachusetts 
and  some  other  jurisdictions  that  it 
is  no  defense  to  an  action  against  a 
common  carrier  for  breach  of  his  eon- 
tract  to  deliver  goods,  that  they  were 
taken  from  him  by  an  officer  under 
an  attachment  against  a  person  who 
was  not  their  owner.  Edwards  v. 
White  Line  Transit  Co.,  104  Mass. 
159,  6  Am.  Rep.  213.  See  also 
Wells  V.  American  Express  Co.,  55 
Wis.  23,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  298, 
42  Am.  Rep.  695;  Walker  v.  Detroit, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  Mich.  446,  9  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  251;  The  Mary  Ann 
Guest,  1  Blatohf.  (U.  S.)  358.  The 
Massachusetts  decision  above  cited 
seems  to  have  been  affected  somewhat 
by  the  form  of  the  action  since  the 
court  admitted  that  the  seizure  of 
the  goods  by  the  sheriff  was  not  a 
conversion  by  the  carrier,  but  that  it 
was  liable  on  its  contract  for  failure 
to  deliver. 

It  is  a  good  defense  to  an  action 
against  a  comomn  carrier  for  prevent- 
ing the  levy  of  an  attachment  upon 
property  in  his  hands,  that  the  prop- 
erty does  not  belong  to  the  defendant 


o30 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


hands  of  a  carrier  by  an  officer  without  valid  legal  process,  or  with- 
out any  warrant  or  other  legal  process,  does  not  excuse  a  carrier 
for  non-delivery,  the  goods  being  unlawfully  taken  from  him." 
If  the  goods  attached  while  in  a  carrier's  charge  for  transportation 
are  not  taken  from  its  custody,  and  the  attachment  is  afterwards 
dissolved,  the  levy  furnishes  no  defence  to  the  carrier  for  failing 
to  transport  and  deliver  them.^  Goods  in  the  custody  of  a  carrier 
within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  court  are  subject  to  attach- 
ment, but  the  service  of  an  attachment  on  a  carrier  creates  no  lien 
on  property  not  within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  court 
issuing  the  writ  at  the  time  of  the  service,  but  which  is  in  transit 
and  beyond  the  limits  of  the  court's  jurisdiction.'*  There  must  be 
an  actual  seizure  of  the  goods  intended  to  be  attached.^  The  lia- 
bility of  the  carrier  ceases  when  the  goods  are  taken  from  its  cus- 
tody by  legal  process  and  it  discharges  its  duty  to  the  consignor 
and  consignee  by  giving  notice  of  the  attachment,  which  gives  them 


in  the  attachment.  Simpson  v.  Du- 
four,  126  Ind.  322,  26  N.  E.  69,  22 
Am.  St.  Eep.  590;  State  v.  Intoxicat- 
ing Liquors,  83  Me.  158. 

97.  Bennett  v.  American  Express 
Co.,  83  Me.  236,  22  Atl.  159,  23  Am. 
St.  Rep.  774,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
56;  Gibbons  v.  Farwell,  63  Mich.  344, 
6  Am.  St.  Rep.  301;  KifiF  v.  Old  Col- 
ony, etc.,  R.  Co.,  117  Mass.  591,  19 
Am.  Rep.  429;  Faust  v.  South  Caro- 
lina R.  Co.,  8  S.  C.  118;  Nickey  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Mo,  App.  79. 

But  the  carrier  is  not  bound  to 
know  that  a  statute  under  which  the 
process  was  issued  is  unconstitu- 
tional, and  need  only  look  to  the  face 
of  the  writ.  McAlister  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Mo.  351,  7  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  373.  See  also,  Robinson  v. 
Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Fed.  57. 

The  carrier  cannot  defend  by  show- 
ing that  the  real  title  to  the  prop- 


erty is  in  a  third  party,  who  bailed 
them  to  the  consignor,  unless  the 
property  has  been  taken  from  the  car- 
rier's possession  by  the  bailor  with- 
out injury  to  the  consignor.  Great 
Western  R.  Co.  v.  McComas,  33  111. 
185. 

98.  Faust  V.  South  Carolina  R.  Co., 
8  S.  C.  118. 

99.  Santa  Fe  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Bosi- 
sut  (N.  M.),  62  Pac.  977;  Suther- 
land V.  Peoria  Second  Nat.  Bank,  78 
Ky.  250,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  368; 
Western  R.  Co.  v.  Thornton,  60  Ga. 
300;  Lawrence  v.  Smith,  45  N.  H. 
533,  86  Am.  Dec.  183;  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  Cobb,  48  111.  402;  Wheat  v. 
Platte  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Kan.  370; 
Bonner  v.  Marsh,  10  Smed.  &  M. 
(Miss.)    376,  48  Am,  Dec.  754, 

1,  Pennsylvania  R.  Co,  v,  Pennock, 
61  Pa.  St.  244. 


LIABILITY  FOR  LOSS  OR  DAMAGE.  331 

timelj  knowledge  of  the  situation  of  the  goods.^  Receiving  no 
reply,  it  has  a  right  to  presume  that  they  have  abandoned  the  prop- 
erty,--as  subject  to  the  legal  process  which  seized  it.^  An  officer 
who  has  made  a  valid  attachment  of  any  property  may  maintain 
trover  against  a  carrier  who  removes  such  property,  after  notice 
of  the  attachment.*  But  a  demand  of  goods  in  the  hands  of  a 
carrier,  by  virtue  of  a  chattel  mortgage  after  condition  broken,  but 
without  any  legal  process,  made  by  a  constable  acting  merely  as 
agent  of  the  mortgagee,  will  not  make  the  carrier  liable  for  con- 
version if  it  refuses  to  surrender  them,  where  the  goods  were  re- 
ceived from  a  third  person  who  has  a  bill  of  lading  therefor.^ 

§  7.  Seizure  under  legal  process. — Garnishment. 

A  common  carrier  is  subject  to  garnishment  by  the  shipper's 
creditor  of  property  delivered  to  it  for  transportation,  which  is  in 
the  carrier's  depot  or  yard  and  in  actual  transit  at  the  time  of 
garnishment,  and  which  is  within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the 
garnishing  court.®  But  a  common  carrier  cannot  be  charged  as  a 
garnishee  for  goods  consigned  to  defendant,  when  it  does  not  know 
whether  they  belong  to  the  defendant  or  not.^  Where  a  carrier,  to 
whom  goods  have  been  entrusted  for  transportation  is  summoned 
as  garnishee  and  remains  in  possession  of  the  goods  which  have 
been  attached  as  the  property  of  a  third  person,  his  refusal  to  de- 
liver them  will  not  render  him  liable  for  a  conversion.^    A  carrier 

2.  Furman  v.  'Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5.  Kohn  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
81  Iowa  540,  46  N.  W.  1049,  45  Am.  37  S.  C.  1,  16  S.  E.  376,  47  Alb.  L. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  385;  MacVeagh  v.  J.  71,  34  Am.  St.  Rep.  726. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  N.  M.  205,  6.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb, 
5  Pac.  457,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  48  111.  402;  Landa  v.  Missouri,  etc., 
651;  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  R.  Co.  (Mo.),  31  S.  W.  900;  Landa 
48  Ga.  432,  11  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  375;  v.  Hoick,  129  Mo.  663;  Adams  v. 
Robinson  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Scott,  104  Mass.  164. 

Fed.  57.  7.  Walker  v.  Detroit,  etc.,   R.  Co., 

3.  Savannah,   etc.,   R.    Co.   ▼.   Wil-       49  Mich.  446,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 


oox,  supra. 


251. 


4.  Johnson  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  8.  Stiles  v.  Davis,  1  Black  (U.  S.), 

44  N.  H.  626.  101;   Adams  v.  Scott,  104  Mass.  164. 


332  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

after  service  of  notice  of  garnishment  upon  it  is  not  liable  as  for 
conversion  for  nondelivery  to  the  consignor  or  his  exercising  his 
right  of  stoppage  in  transitu.'^  A  garnishment  after  transportation 
has  ended  and  the  goods  are  stored  in  a  warehouse,  while  it  re- 
mains in  force,  excuses  the  carrier  from  delivering  the  property 
to  the  shipper  or  consignee/"  But  a  common  carrier  cannot  be 
held  as  garnishee  for  property  in  actual  transit  at  the  time  of 
the  service  of  the  process,^^  nor  for  property  which  is  beyond  the 
territorial  limits  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  issuing  the 
process.^^  These  exceptions  to  the  general  rule  are  founded  upon 
considerations  of  public  policy,  it  being  considered  unreasonable 
that  a  carrier  should  under  such  circumstances  be  subjected  to  the 
costs,  inconvenience  and  burden  of  such  process  merely  because 
it  had  received  to  be  carried  that  which  the  law  compelled  to  be 
received  and  carried.^^ 

§  8.  Seizure  under  police  regulations. 

A  common  carrier  of  goods  is  excused  from  liability  to  the 
shipper  or  owner,  where  the  goods  are  taken  from  its  custody  by 

9.  Letts-Spencer  Grocer  Co.  v.  Mis-  having  in  their  possession,  in  Massa- 
souri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  138  Mo.  App.  352,  chusetts,  in  course  of  transportation 
132  S.  W.  10.  to  the  defendant,  at  his  place  of  resi- 

10.  Cooley  v.  Minnesota  Transfer  dence,  a  sealed  package  of  money  be- 
Co.,  53  Minn.  327,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  longing  to  him,  may  be  summoned  as 
Cas.  615,  55  N.  W.  141.  his  trustees. 

11.  Bates  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb, 
60  Wis.  298,  50  Am.  Rep.  369;  lUi-  48  III.  402;  Bates  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
nois  C€nt.  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb,  48  111.  402;  Co.,  60  Wis.  298,  50  Am.  Rep.  369; 
^Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago.  Sutherland  v.  Peoria  Second  Nat. 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  111.  App.  399;  West-  Bank,  78  Ky.  250,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
em  R.  Co.  v.  Thornton,  60  Ga.  300;  Cas.  368.  See  also,  Pennsylvania  R. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Pennock,  51  Co.  v.  Pennock,  51  Pa.  St.  244; 
Pa.  St.  254,  disapproving  Childs  v.  Clark  v.  Brewer,  6  Gray  (Mass.),  320; 
Digby,  24  Pa.  St.  23;  Stevenot  v.  Lawrence  v.  Smith,  45  N.  H.  533.  86 
Ea.stern  R.  Co.,  61  Minn.  104.  Com-  Am.  Dec.  183;  Wheat  v.  Piatt  City, 
pore  Adams  v.  Scott,  104  Mass.  164,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Kan.  378.  Compare 
liolding  that  in  an  action  against  a  Childs  v.  Digby,  24  Pa.  St.  23. 
resident  of  another  state  who  ap-  13.  See  cases  cited  in  last  two  pre- 
pears  and  answers,  common  carriers,  ceding  notes. 


LIABILITY  FOR  LOSS  OR  DAMAGE. 


333 


legal  process  other  than  attachment  or  execution,  as,  for  example, 
by  warrant  for  being  stolen  or  embezzled  property,^*  or  being 
property  liable  to  seizure  and  destruction,  or  forfeiture,  under  the 
laws  of  the  State,  because  of  being  intoxicating  liquors  or  other 
articles  intended  for  sale  or  for  use  in  violation  of  law,  or  because 
of  being  infected  with  a  contagious  disease.^"  Where  goods  are 
taken  from  the  carrier  under  such  circumstances  it  must  appear 
that  prompt  notice  of  the  seizure  was  given  to  the  owner  of  the 
goods,  and  that  they  were  taken  from  the  carrier  without  its  con- 
nivance, procurement  or  collusion,  and  that  the  proceeding  and 
process  under  which  the  seizure  was  made  was  apparently  regular 
and  valid/®  The  motive  by  which  a  carrier  was  controlled  is  of  no 
avail  as  a  defense,  however,  though  it  may  be  shown  to  prevent 
recovery  of  exemplary  damages." 


14.  Bliven  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co., 
36  N.  Y.  407;  Tyler  v.  London,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  1  C.  &  E.  285,  where  the  car- 
rier had  been  intrusted  with  such 
goods  by  the  police,  who  had  taken 
possession  of  them  for  the  purpose  of 
prosecuting  a  person  charged  with 
theft. 

15.  Wells  V.  Maine  Steamship  Co., 
4  Cliff.  (U.  S.)  228,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,401;  State  v.  Creeden,  78  I  wa, 
556,  43  N.  W.  673,  7  R.  A.  295,  40  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Oas.  31;  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  O'Donnell,  49  Ohio  St.  489, 
55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  672;  Atkinson 
V.  Ritchie,  10  East  534;  Indianapolis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Juntgen,  10  111.  App. 
295;  Na^ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Estes, 
10  Lea  (Tenn.)  755,  3  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  492;  McAlister  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  74  Mo.  351,  4  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  210. 

A  common  carrier  is  liable,  how- 
ever, for  the  value  of  fish  shipped 
over  its  line  which  were  seized  by  a 
game  warden  on  the  ground  that  the 


fish  were  illegally  caught,  where  such 
warden  had  neither  legal  nor  appar- 
ent legal  right  to  seize  the  same. 
Merriman  v.  Great  Northern  Express 
Co.,  63  Minn.  543,  65  N.  W.  1080; 
Bennett  v.  American  Express  Co.,  83 
Me.  236,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  774,  49  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  57,  22  Atl.  159,  13  L. 
R.  A.  33;  Edwards  v.  White  Line 
Transit  Co.,  104  Mass.  163,  6  Am. 
Rep.  213. 

16.  Robinson  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  16  Fed.  57;  Gibbons  v.  Farwell, 
63  Mich.  344,  6  Am.  St.  Rep.  301; 
Kiff  V.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  117 
Mass.  591,  19  Am.  Rep.  429;  Harker 
V.  Dement,  9  Gill  (Md.),  7,  52  Am. 
Dec.  670. 

17.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Don- 
nell, 49  Ohio  St.  489,  55  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  667. 

Where  the  declaration  charges  a 
non-delivery  of  the  goods  by  the  car- 
rier, a  plea  by  the  defendant  that 
the  goods  had,  prior  to  their  delivery 
to  the  defendant,  been  forfeited  to  the 


334  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

§  9.  Duty  of  carrier  after  disaster. 

It  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier,  when  goods  in  his  car  are  injured, 
to  make  reasonable  exertions  to  repair  the  injury  or  arrest  its 
progress.  Hence,  if  packages  of  fur  become  wet,  he  should  have 
them  opened  and  dried.^^  But  the  master  of  a  steamboat  carrying 
wheat,  which  was  wet  by  inevitable  accident,  is  not  liable  for  dam- 
ages because  he  did  not  dry  the  wheat.^'  Where  an  express  com- 
pany, on  receiving  a  package  for  transportation,  is  not  informed 
that  it  contains  gold,  the  company  is  not  negligent  in  failing  to 
search  the  ruins  of  the  express  car  after  a  fire  in  order  to  recover 
the  property.  Negligence  can  not  be  predicated  on  the  company's 
omission  under  such  circumstances.^"  The  consignor  of  goods  by 
railway,  who  is  also  consignee,  may  not  recover  of  the  company 
because  the  car  containing  the  goods  was  left  over  night,  un- 
guarded, on  the  track,  broken  into,  cases  of  goods  opened,  and  the 
goods  scattered,  although  he  abandons  the  consignment  to  the  car- 
rier, when  he  is  unable  to  prove  that  any  of  the  goods  were  dam- 
aged thereby,  or  that  any  were  lost.^^  Where  goods  in  the  hands 
of  a  common  carrier  are  placed  in  jeopardy  by  some  vis  major,  it 
is  bound  to  use  actively  and  energetically  such  means  to  save  them 
as  prudent  and  skillful  men  engaged  in  that  business  might  fairly 
be  expected  to  use  under  like  circumstances.  It  is  error,  there- 
fore, to  charge  the  jury  that  in  such  case  the  carrier  is  bound  to 
use  "  all  the  diligence  which  human  sagacity  can  suggest."^^     The 

government  for  non-payment  of  cua-  Where  the  consignee  refused  to  re- 

toms,  states  no  valid  defense.    White  ceive  any  part  of  the  shipment,  or  to 

V.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  6  Man.  L.  co-operate    in    examining   the    goods. 

Rep.  169.  and  claims  reimbursement  as  for  to- 

18.  Chouteaux  v.  Leech,  18  Pa.  St.  tal  loss,  the  carrier  will  not  be  held 
224.  guilty  of  "  converting  "  the  goods,  by 

19.  Steamboat  Lynx  v.  King,  12  Mo.  reason  of  calling  in  disinterested  and 
272.  competent  persons  and  having  broken 

20.  Rowan  V.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  packages  repacked,  and  unbroken 
80  App.  Div.  (N.  y.)  31,  80  N.  Y.  packages  opened  and  examined,  in  or- 
Supp.  226.  der   to    ascertain    the    character    and 

21.  Silverman  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  condition  of  their  contents.    Id. 

Co.,  51  La.  Ann.  1785,  26  So.  447.  22.  Nashville  &  C.  R.  Co.  v.  David, 


LIABILITY  FOR  LOSS  OR  DAMAGE.  335 

fact  that  a  station  agent  persuaded  the  consignee  of  freight  to 
receive  goods  in  a  damaged  condition  and  pay  the  freight  does  not 
render  the  company  liable  for  damages  when  it  would  not  other- 
wise be  responsible,  unless  the  agent  was  authorized  to  assume  such 
responsibility.^^  Where,  a  shipment  of  eggs  having  been  caught 
in  transit  by  a  flood,  it  was  agreed  between  one  of  the  owners  and 
the  carrier  that  the  owner  should  take  charge  of  the  eggs  and 
handle  them,  for  the  account  of  the  carrier,  such  agreement  did 
not  affect  the  rights  of  the  parties  by  serving  to  create  a  liability 
on  the  part  of  the  carrier  for  the  loss  suffered.^*  Where  a  consignee 
directed  the  carrier  not  to  re-ice  fish  in  transit,  and  decay,  result- 
ing from  failure  to  re-ice,  made  transportation  unsafe,  the  carrier 
could  discharge  or  destroy  the  shipment  without  liability.^^  Where 
the  verdict  in  favor  of  the  consignee  in  an  action  for  the  value 
of  damaged  chops  injured  in  transportation  was  the  same  as  plain- 
tiff would  have  been  entitled  to  recover  had  he  accepted  and  sold 
the  chops  for  their  reasonable  value  in  their  damaged  condition, 
the  fact  that  he  unlawfully  refused  to  accept  the  same  and  sued 
for  their  value,  instead  of  the  difference  between  the  value  as  ship- 
ped and  as  delivered,  was  immaterial.^®  Where  a  loaded  freight 
car  is  derailed  and  left  at  the  place  of  the  accident,  the  carrier 
must  take  reasonable  care  of  its  contents;  and,  if  the  carrier's 
employes  invite  or  suggest  to  bystanders  to  carry  them  away  or 
destroy  them,  the  carrier  is  liable  to  the  shipper  for  the  loss.^ 
Though  liability  for  fire  is  excepted,  the  carrier  is  bound  to  do  all 
that  reasonable  and  prudent  men  could  do  to  prevent  the  entire 
destruction  of  the  property  after  it  has  caught  fire.^     If  mercan- 

53  Tenn.  (6  Heisk.)  261,  19  Am.  Rep.  26.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  H.  B.  Pitta 

594.  &  Son,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App.  212,  83  S.  W. 

23.  Southern    Ry.    Oo.   v.    Gardner,      727. 

127  Ga.  320,  56  S.  E.  454.  27.  Lucesco  Oil  Oo.  v.  Pennsylvania 

24.  Lightfoot  V.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.      R.  Co.,  2  Pittsb.  R.   (Pa.)   477. 

R.  Co.,  126  Mo.  App.  532,  104  S.  W.  28.  Woodward  v.  Illinois   Cent.   R. 

482.  <^<>-.    Fed.    Cas.   No.    18,006    (1    Bias. 

25.  Southern   Express   Co.   v.   Fant  403 )  ;   Fed.  C^aa.  No.  18,007    ( 1  Bisa. 
Fish  Co.,  —  Ga.  App.  — ,  78  S.  E.  197.  447). 


33 G  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

dise  on  board  a  boat  gets  wet  by  accident,  and  no  exertion  is  mada 
to  dry  it,  the  carrier  is  liable  for  the  damage,  though  his  engage- 
ment was  to  deliver  safely,  "  the  dangers  of  the  river  excepted."^* 
A  shipper  of  fruit  trees  that  became  injured  during  the  trans- 
portation cannot  recover  for  such  further  injuries  as  he  might 
have  averted  by  properly  caring  for  the  trees.'''* 

§  10.  Loss  or  injury  from  inherent  nature  of  goods. 

A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  losses  or  injuries  resulting  from  the 
inherent  nature  of  the  goods,  which  would  not  have  been  prevented 
by  the  exercise  of  ordinary  care  on  its  part  f^  or  for  loss  or  injury 
to  goods  caused  by  an  inherent  defect  in  the  goods  themselves,  the 
existence  of  which  was  unknown  both  to  the  sender  and  the  car- 
rier.^^  A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  loss  due  to  the  bursting  of  a 
hogshead  of  molasses  by  reason  of  fermentation,  as  this  results 
from  the  operation  of  natural  laws  which  a  common  carrier  does 
not  insure  against.^^  The  general  rule  above  stated  has  its  most 
frequent  application  in  determining  the  liability  of  carriers  in  the 
carrying  of  live  stock.^*  A  common  carrier  is  not  responsible  for 
a  loss  or  injury  occurring  from  any  inherent  natural  infirmity 
or  tendency  to  damage,  depreciation,  or  decay  of  the  goods  in  the 
course  of  transportation.^^     The  freezing  of  potatoes  by  a  carrier 

29.  Bird  v.  Cromwell,  1  Mo.  81,  13  bound  to  divert  the  goods  to  a  route 
Am.  Dec.  470;  Ewart  v.  Street,  2  Bai-  over  which  he  has  no  control,  but 
ley   (S.  C),  157,  23  Am.  Dec.  131.  may  sell  the  goods  for  the  best  price 

30.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.  he  can  obtain,  in  order  to  convert 
Rushin  3  Willson  Civ.  Cas.  Ct.  App.  what  would  inevitably  be  a  total  loss 
(Tex.)   318.  ^"^  o^^  that  is  partial  merely.     See 

31.  American       Express       Co.       v.  also,  §  4,  chap.  2. 

Smith,  33  Ohio  St.  511,  31  Am.  Rep.  32.  Lister  v.  Lancashire  &  Y.  Ry., 

561,  if,  while  perishable  goods  are  in  72  L.  J.  K.  B.   385,  1  K.  B.  878,  88 

transit,  an  unavoidable  delay  occurs,  L.  T.  561,  52  Wkly.  Rep.  12. 

the  carrier  must  exercise  sound  dis-  33.  Faucher   v.    Wilson,    68    N.    H. 

cretion    and    reasonable    dilig<^nce    in  338,  38  Atl.  1002,  39  L.  R.  A.  431. 

forwarding  them  to  their  destination,  34.  See  §  3,  chap.  2. 

but,    if    it    does    not    appear    that    a  35.  Carpenter  v.  Baltimore  &  O.  R. 

change   of   route   would   prevent   the  Co.,  6  Pen.   (Del.)   15,  64  Atl.  252. 

losB  attendant  upon  delay,  he  is  not 


LIABILITY  FOR  LOSS  OR  DAMAGE.  337 

will  be  held  to  be  caused  bj  the  nature  of  the  property,  so  as  to 
exempt  him  from  liability,  provided  he  has  been  guilty  of  no 
previous  negligence  or  misconduct  which  can  be  considered  the 
proximate  cause  of  the  injury.^*  A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  such 
damages  as  result  solely  from  an  inherent  infirmity  in  the  goods  in 
its  care."  While  carriers,  in  the  absence  of  stipulations  to  the 
contrary,  are  insurers  of  goods  intrusted  to  them  for  shipment, 
they  will  not  be  so  held  where  loss  or  damage  results  from  vices 
or  defects  inherent  in  the  goods.^^  While  a  carrier  as  to  most  com- 
modities is  an  insurer  against  all  results  incident  to  the  transporta- 
tion thereof  except  the  act  of  God,  a  public  enemy,  or  the  fault  of 
the  shipper,  it  is  only  liable  for  deterioration  in  perishable  goods, 
where  negligent  in  protecting  the  goods  from  injury  while  in  its 
custody,  or  in  delivering  them  with  dispatch  to  the  consignee  or 
connecting  carrier.^^  If  the  value  of  peaches  delivered  to  a  car- 
rier for  transportation  was  lessened  because  they  became  unsound 
by  reason  of  natural  deterioration  while  in  possession  of  the  car- 
rier without  its  fault,  it  would  not  be  liable  to  the  owners,  though 
the  injury  occurred  without  fault  of  the  consignees,  and  an  instruc- 
tion to  the  contrary  was  erroneous.^**  A  carrier  is  not  responsible 
for  injuries  to  apples  by  freezing,  due  to  their  own  inherent  nature 
and  natural  causes  without  fault  on  the  carrier's  part,  or  caused 
by  the  shipper's  negligence.*^  A  common  carrier,  sued  for  loss  or 
damage  to  goods,  may  defend  on  the  ground  that  the  loss  or  damage 
accrued  through  an  inherent  vice  or  natural  deterioration  of  the 
goods.*^ 

36.  McGraw  v.  Baltimore  &  O.  R.  hearing  denied,  109  Md.  494,  72  Atl. 
Co.,  18  W.  Va.  361,  41  Am.  Rep.  696.  458. 

37.  R.  E.  Funsten  Dried  Fruit  &  40.  Pennsylvania  R.  Cb.  v.  Goetch- 
Nut  Co.  V.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  163  Mo.  ius  &  Caperton,  135  Ga.  176,  68  S.  E. 
App.  426,  143  S.  VV.  839.  1110. 

38.  Currie  v.  Seaboard  Air  Line  41.  B.  F.  Schwartz  &  Co.  v.  Erie  R. 
Co.,  156  N.  C.  432,  72  S.  E.  493.  Co.,  32  Ky.  Law  Rep.  777,  106  S.  W. 

39.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dif-  1188. 

fendal,  109  Md.  494,  72  Atl.  193,  re-  42.  Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Bailey, 

7  Ga.  App.  331,  66  S.  E.  960. 
22 


338  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

§  11.  Care  required  of  carrier  in  general. 

A  carrier  is  not  bound  to  provide  against  an  unprecedented 
emergency,  such  as  a  greater  flood  than  was  ever  known  before  in 
the  locality,  unless  it  has  reason  to  suspect  that  such  emergency  is 
about  to  arise ;  then  it  is  bound  to  take  such  precautionary  meas- 
ures as  prudent  and  skillful  men  in  the  same  business  under  like 
circumstances  might  fairly  be  expected  to  use.*^  A  common  car- 
rier is  liable  for  all  losses  which  it  could  have  prevented  by  skill 
and  foresight ;  and  the  onus  is  on  it  to  show  that  the  loss  was  such 
as  it  could  not  have  prevented.**  It  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier,  when 
goods  in  its  care  are  injured,  to  make  reasonable  exertions  to  re- 
pair the  injury  or  arrest  its  progress.*^  If  the  means  of  convey- 
ance has  become  disabled,  it  is  bound  to  use  its  utmost  exertions 
to  transport  or  send  forward  the  goods  to  the  place  of  delivery, 
even  though  it  have  to  hire  or  provide  other  means  for  that  pur- 
pose, or  send  them  by  another  route.*^  Whether  a  carrier  has 
discharged  the  duty  of  using  care  and  diligence  in  the  transporta- 
tion of  goods  intrusted  to  it,  is  to  be  judged  with  reference  to  the 
nature  of  the  services  and  the  circumstances  and  exigencies  under 
which  it  is  to  be  performed.  Where  skill  and  capacity  are  re- 
quired  to   accomplish   the   undertaking   it   is   negligence   not   to 

43.  NasTiville,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  David,  at  the  end  of  the  route  is  prevented 
6  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  261,  19  Am.  Rep.  by  a  state  of  war,  it  is  the  carrier's 
594,  12  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  9;  Craig  v.  duty  to  take  care  of  the  goods  for 
Childress,  Peck  (Tenn.),  270,  14  Am.  the  consignor,  and  notify  him  within 
Dec.  751;  Dillard  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  a  reasonable  time  of  its  inability  to 
R.  Co.,  2  Lea   (Tenn.),  299.  make  the  delivery,  after  which  its  li- 

Under  Georgia  statutes  a  carrier  is  ability  is  only  that  of  a  bailee,     See 

bound  to  use  extraordinary  diligence,  also,  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keedy, 

Richmond,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White,   88  75   Md.   320,   23  Atl.   643,  49  Am.  & 

Ga.  805,  12  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  273,  15  Eng.  R.  Cas.  124. 

S.  E.  802.    See  also,  Lamont  v.  Nash-  45.  Chouteaux  v.  Leech,  18  Pa.  St. 

ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Heisk.    (Tenn.)  224,  57  Am.  Dec.  602;  Pearce  v.  The 

59,  Thomas  Newton,  41  Fed.  106. 

44.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  More-  46.  The  Maggie  Hammond,  9  Wall, 
head,  5  W.  Va.  293,  if  access  to  the  (U.  S.)  435;  Chicago,  ©tc.,  R.  Oo.  v. 
consignee  and   delivery  of  the  goods  Manning,  23  Neb.  552. 


LLA.BIUXi    FUK  LUtib   (JR  DAMAGE.  339 

employ  persons  having  those  qualifications.*^     A  common  carrier 
is  relieved  from  liability  if  it  can  show  that  it  has  provided  all 
reasonable  means  of  transportation,  and  exercised  that  degree  of 
care  which  the  nature  of  the  property  requires.**    A  common  car- 
rier which  has  an  option  as  to  the  mode  of  shipment  must  exercise 
it  reasonably  under  the  circumstances  for  the  best  interest  of  the 
consignee,  and  it  is  a  breach  of  the  contract  to  exercise  it  to  his 
disadvantage  unless  it  is  done  in  good  faith  and  under  circum- 
stances which  seem  to  require  it.*^     A  railroad  company  is  not, 
as  matter  of  law,  free  from  negligence  in  permitting  a  carload  of 
strawberries  received  by  it  to  remain  for  about  seven  hours  with- 
out re-icing,  at  which  time  the  ice  is  about  two-thirds  gone,  where 
it  is  necessary  that  the  ice  box  should  be  filled  for  complete  re- 
frigeration.^**   A  shipper  of  apples  assumes  the  risk  of  their  decaj 
during  transit  owing  to  lack  of  ventilation,  where  he  knew  there 
was  no  practicable  means  of  ventilating  the  cars  in  which  they  • 
were  shipped  while  in  transit.^^    A  railroad  company  will  not  be 
required  to  place  its  cars  containing  inflammable  materials,  wheii  ' 
temporarily  standing  on  side  tracks,  in  such  situation  that  thej 

47.  HoUa-day  v.  Kennard,  12  Wall.  hours  and  when  no  one  representing 
(U.  S.)  254.  See  also,  Memphis,  etc.,  the  carrier  was  there  to  receive  them, 
E.  Co.  V.  Reevas,  10  Wall.  (U.  S.)  notwithstanding  that  its  "  bill  clerk  " 
176.  Compare  Shoemaker  v.  Kings-  was  informed  at  his  residence,  which 
bury,  12  Wall.    (U.  S.)    359.  was   about   100   feet   from   the   ware 

The   carrier's   liability   for   loss   of  house,  that  the  goods  had  been  left 

goods    transported     over     connecting  and   was   requested   to   bill   and   ship 

routes,  in  cases  depending  on  special  them  early  the  next  morning.     Spof- 

circumstances,      determined;      Wood-  ford  v.  Pennsylvania  R.   Co.,   11   Pa 

ward  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  1  Biss.  Super.  Ct.  97. 

(U.  S.)   403,  447;   Cohen  v.  Southern  49.  Stewart  v.  Comer,  100  Ga.  754, 

Express    Co.,    45    Ga.    148;    Gray    v.  63  Am.   St.  Rep.  353,  28  S.  E.  461; 

Jackson,    51   N.   H.   9;    Pennsylvania  Blitz   v.   Union   S.   B.    Co.,   51   Mich. 

R.  Oo.  V.  Berry,  68  Pa.  St.  272.  588. 

48.  Burke  v.  United  States  Express  50.  Lamb  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
Co.,   87  111.  App.   505.     The  liability  101  Wis.  138,  76  N.  W.  1123. 

of  a  common  carrier  as  such  does  not  51.  Densmore    Commission    Co.    v. 

attac^h  to  goods  which  were  taken  to  Duluth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101  Wis.  563,  77 

and   placed    in   its  warehouse  by   the  N.  W.  904. 
owner  or  his  agent  after  the  closing 


340  THE  LAW  OF  CAEIUERS. 

can  be  watched  bj  policemen,  or  be  within  reach  of  fire  engines 
or  other  means  for  extinguishing  fires.^^  A  railroad  will  be  liable 
for  loss  caused  by  defects  in  tank  cars  which  it  hires  from  a  third 
person  for  the  transportation  of  property  of  a  shipper  of  oil.^^  On 
refusal  of  the  consignee  to  accept  goods,  it  devolves  on  the  master 
of  the  carrier  to  have  them  placed,  at  the  expense  of  the  consignee, 
in  a  place  where  they  will  not  be  exposed  to  loss.^*  A  common 
carrier  of  goods  is  excused  from  liability  to  a  shipper  when  the 
goods  are  taken  from  him  by  legal  process  and  he  immediately 
notifies  the  shipper.^  If  transportation  is  delayed  or  the  goods 
endangered  by  the  acts  of  a  mob,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to 
use  all  reasonable  efforts  and  diligence  to  protect  the  goods  from 
injury,  to  overcome  the  obstacles  thus  interposed,  and  to  forward 
the  goods  to  their  destination.^® 

52.  Insurance  Co.  of  N.  A.  v.  Lake  55.  Bliven  &  Mead  v.  Hudson  River 
Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  152  Ind.  333,  1  R.  Co.,  36  N.  Y.  403.  See  Seizure  by 
Repr.  819,  4  Chic.  L.  J.  Kkly.  201.  legal  process,   §  6,  ante. 

53.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  N.  K.  56.  Greismer  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 
Fairbanks  &  Co.,  90  Fed.  467,  33  C.  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  563,  55  Am.  Rep.  837; 
C.  A.  611,  62  U.  S.  App.  231,  13  Am.  Lang  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  154  Pa. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  179.  St.  342,  32  W.  N.  C.   (Pa.)   205.     See 

54.  Sonia  Cotton  Oil  Co.  v.  The  Loss  or  injury  by  public  enemy,  §  5, 
Red  River,  106  La.  42,  30  So.  303,  87  ante. 

Am.  St.  Rep.  293. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

Liability  foe  Delay. 

Sbctiow     1.  Liability  for  delay  in  transportation. 

2.  Usage  of  course  or  business. 

3.  Diligence  required  of  carrier. 

4.  Liability  where  there  is  a  special  contract. 

5.  Liability  where  there  are  special  instructions  by  the  shipper. 

6.  Liability  under  statutes  requiring  prompt  forwarding  of  freight. 

7.  Delay  in  delivering  perishable  freight. 

8.  Delay  must  have  been  the  proximate  cause  of  injury. 

9.  Waiver  of  right  of  action  for  delay. 

10.  Excuses  for  delay  generally. 

11.  Unusual  floods  and  storms. 

12.  Accumulation  or  shortage  of  cars  and  congestion  of  freight. 

13.  Low  water  or  freezing  of  water-way. 

14.  Strikes  by  employes. 

15.  Delay  caused  by  levy  on  goods. 

16.  Limitation  of  liability  for  delay. 

17.  Carrier's  duty  during  delay. 

18.  Delay  concurring  with  inevitable  accident. 

§  1.  Liability  for  delay  in  transportation. 

The  general  rule  in  reference  to  the  liability  of  a  carrier  for  a 
delay  in  the  transportation  and  delivery  of  goods  is  that  it  is  re- 
quired to  exercise  due  care  and  diligence  to  guard  against  delay, 
and  to  forward  the  goods  to  their  destination  with  all  convenient 
dispatch  and  deliver  them  promptly,  and  the  carrier  is  liable  for 
its  failure  to  do  so.^     There  is  no  rule  of  law  which  requires  a 

1.  N.   Y. — Geismer  v.  Lake  Shore,  U.  8. — Missouri    Pac.     R.     Co.    v. 

etc.,  R.  Co.,   102  N.  Y.  563,   55  Am.  Hall,  66  Fed.  868,  32  U.  S.  App.  60; 

Rep.  837;   Waite  v.  New  York  Cent.,  Thomas   v.   Wabash,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   63 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  N.  Y.  635,  35  Am.  &  Fed.  200. 

Eng.  R.  Cas.   576,   affg.   17   St.  Rep.  Ala. — Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.     v. 

(N.  Y.)   162,  17  N.  E.  730;   Stedman  Touart,  97  Ala.  514. 
▼.  Western  Transp.  Co.,  48  Barb.   (N.  Ark. — St.     Louis,    etc.,     R.     Oo.   y. 

Y.)   97;  Little  v.  Fargo,  43  Hun   (N.  Heath,  41  Ark.  477,   18  Am.  &  Eng. 

Y.).  237.  R.  Cas.  557. 

(341) 


342 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


carrier  to  transport  aud  deliver  goods  within  any  definite  time 
after  receiving  them  for  transportation,  except  where  there  is  an 
express  contract  to  do  so  within  a  certain  time.  In  the  absence 
of  a  special  contract  there  is  no  absolute  duty  resting  upon  a  com- 
mon carrier,  implied  from  the  delivery  to  or  receipt  by  it  of  goods 
for  transportation,  to  transport  and  deliver  them  within  what 
would  be,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  a  reasonable  time.  The 
actual  circumstanced  in  each  case  must  be  taken  into  consideration 
in  determining  what  is  a  delivery  with  raesonable  promptness 
in  that  case."  A  carrier  is  bound  to  deliver  goods  within  a  reason- 
able time,  under  ordinary  circumstances.  Accidents,  temporary 
interruptions  or  obstructions,  which  could  not,  by  ordinary  prud- 
ence, be  provided  against,  excuse  delay,  but  do  not  absolve  from 


Cal. — Palmer  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  101  Cal.  187. 

La. — Berje  v,  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
37  La.  Ann.  468. 

Mo. — Dawson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  79  Mo.  296,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  521;  Rankin  v.  Pacific  R.  Co., 
55  Mo.  167;  Schwab  v.  Union  Line, 
13  Mo.  App.  159. 

Nel. — Denman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  52  Neb.  140,  71  N.  W.  767; 
Gates  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Neb. 
379,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  218 

2V^.  C. — Purcell  v.  Richmond,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  108  N.  C.  414;  Branch  v.  Wil- 
mington, etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  N.  C.  570. 

Ohio. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
O'Donnell,   49   Ohio   St.   489. 

Pa, — Clark  v.  Needles,  25  Pa.  St. 
338. 

fcx. — International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ritchie  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  26  S.  W. 
840. 

Ya. — Spence  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  92  Va.  102,  22  S.  E.  815,  29  L. 
R.  A.  578,  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N. 
S.  70S,  and  a  coasignor  of  the  goods 


who  delivers  them  to  a  carrier  for 
shipment  subject  to  a  lien  for  the 
purchase  price,  retaining  the  right  to 
possessiin  until  the  drafts  therefor 
are  accepted  by  the  consignee,  and 
who  makes  a  special  contract  with 
the  company  for  their  shipment, 
guaranteeing  the  payment  of  freight, 
may  sue  for  damages  for  failure  to 
deliver  within  a  reasonable  time. 

The  person  who  contracts  with  the 
carrier  for  the  transportation  may 
maintain  an  action  in  his  own  name, 
although  other  parties  have  an  inter- 
est in  the  goods.  Galveston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Barnett  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  26 
S.  W.  782.  He  may  likewise  sue  in 
his  own  name,  where  the  contract  was 
made  in  the  name  of  commission  mer- 
chants to  whom  he  consigns  property, 
but  for  his  own 

That  it  received  the  stock  on  Sun- 
day is  no  excuse  for  the  delay  of  a 
railroad  company  in  forwarding  the 
stock.  Guinn  v.  WabaSh,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
20  Mo.  App.  453. 

2.  Carrier  must   deliver  with   rea- 


LIABILITY  FOR  DELAY. 


a4a 


the  duty  to  carry  and  deliver  as  soon  as  it  becomes  practicable,  or 
as  soon  as  the  impediment  to  the  transportation  is  removed  or  can 


sonable  promptness  or  without  un- 
reasonable delay. 

N.  Y. — Gteismer  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  563,  55  Am.  Rep. 
837;  Little  v.  Fargo,  43  Hun  (N.  Y.), 
137;  Parsons  v.  Hardy,  14  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)  215,  28  Am.  Dec.  521;  Wibert  V. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Ck).,  19  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  36,  12  N.  Y.  24  5;  Stedman  v. 
Western  Traiisp.  Co.,  43  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)    97. 

Del. — Tniax  v.  Philadclpliia,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  3  Houst.    (Dei.)    233. 

Ga. — Johnson  v.  East  Teiine&see, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ga.  810;  Smith  v, 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Ga.  539; 
Rome  R.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  14  Ga.  277, 
32  Ga.  400. 

III. — ^Alichigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cur- 
tis, 80  111.  324;  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  McCasland,  11  111.  App.  491;  Illi- 
nois Cent.  R.  Co.  V.  Waters,  41  111. 
73;  Michigan  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Dry,  20  111.  375,  71  Am.  Dec.  278; 
Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rae,  18  111. 
488,  68  Am.  Dec.  574. 

Ind. — Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Clark,  2 
Tnd.  App.  146. 

.¥o5'?. — Fox  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
148  Mass.  220,  37  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
632;  Hoadley  v.  Northern  Transp. 
Co.,  115  Mass.  304,  15  Am.  Rep.  106. 

Miss. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Haynes,  64  Miss.  604,  30  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  38;  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ragsdale,  46  Miss.  458;  Water  Val- 
ley Bank  v.  Southern  Express  Co.,  71 
Miss.  741. 

Mo. — Dawson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  79  Mo.  296,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Caa.    521:    I^einard    v.    Chicago,    otc.. 


R.  Co.,  57  Mo.  App.  366;  Read  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Mo.  208;  Greg- 
ory V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  46  Mo.  App. 
574;  Schwab  v.  Union  Line,  13  Mp. 
App.  159. 

N.  C. — Boner  v.  Merchants'  Steam- 
boat Co.,  1  Jones  L.  (N.  C.)  211; 
Harrell  v.  Owens,  1  Dev.  &  B.  L.  (N. 
C)   273. 

Ohio. — American  Express  Co.  v. 
Smith,  33  Ohio  St.  511,  31  Am.  Rep. 
561. 

Pa.— Eagle  v.  White,  6  Whart. 
(Pa.)  505,  37  Am.  Dec.  434;  Hill  v. 
Humphreys,  5  W.  &  S.  (Pa.)  123,  39 
Am.  Dec.  117;  Ludwig  v.  Meyre,  5 
W.  &  S.  (Pa.)  438. 

S.  C. — Nettles  v.  South  Carolina  R. 
Co.,  7  Rich,  L.  (S.  C.)  190,  62  Am. 
Dec.  409. 

Tenn. — Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Jackson,  6  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  271,  12 
Am.  Ry.  Rep.  54;  East  Tennessee, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Nelson,  1  Coldw. 
(Tenn.)    276. 

Tex. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Weis- 
man,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  86;  Atchison, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Bryan  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  28  S.  W.  98. 

Ft— Mann  v.  Birchard,  40  Vt.  326. 

Wis. — McLaren  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  23  Wis.  138;  Nudd  v.  Wells,  11 
Wis.  407. 

Eng. — Taylor  v.  Great  Northern  R. 
Co.,  L.  R.  1  C.  P.  335,  12  Jur.  N.  S. 
372,  35  L.  J.  C.  P.  210,  14  W.  R.  639; 
Hughes  v.  Gre.it  Western  R.  Co.,  14 
C.  B.  637,  78  E.  C.  L.  637,  25  Eng,  L. 
&  Eq.  347;  D'Arc  v.  London,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  L.  R.  9  C.  P.  325;  Hales  v.  Lon- 
don, et«.,  R.  Co.,  4  B.  &  S.  66,  116  E. 


344 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


reasouablv  be  overcome.'  In  determining  what  is  a  reasonable 
time  under  any  given  circumstances,  the  mode  of  conveyance,  the 
nature  of  the  goods,  the  season  of  the  year,  the  character  of  the 
weather,  and  the  ordinary  facilities  for  transportation  under  the 
control  of  the  carrier  are  to  be  considered.^  Likewise,  the  char- 
acter of  the  freight,  whether  articles  not  liable  to  decay  or  dam- 
age by  a  brief  delay,  such  as  iron,  wood,  cotton,  grain,  and  things 
of  like  character,  or  articles  by  reason  of  their  nature  and  inherent 
character  liable  to  loss  or  damage  by  the  delay  of  a  day,  such  as 
live  stock,  fish,  oysters,  fruit,  vegetables  and  things  of  similar  char- 
acter, must  be  taken  into  consideration.^  Ordinarily,  what  is  a 
reasonable  time  within  which  delivery  should  be  made  and  what 
is  unreasonable  delay  in  transportation  is  a  question  of  fact  for 
the  jury  to  determine  under  all  the  circumstances  attending  the 
particular  case.^     That  the  time  occupied  in  transportation  and 


C.  L.  66;  Donohoe  v.  London,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  15  W.  R.  792;  Raphael  v.  Pick- 
ford,  5  M.  &  G.  558,  44  E.  C.  L.  295; 
Great  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Redmayne, 
L.  R.  1  C.  P.  329;  Robinson  v.  Great 
Western  R.  Co.,  1  H.  &  R.  97,  14  W. 
R.  206. 

3.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Don- 
nell,  49  Ohio  St.  489;  Vicksburg,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Ragsdale,  46  Miss.  477; 
Briddon  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  28 
L.  J.  Exch.  51,  32  L.  T.  94;  Michigan 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Curtis,  80  HI.  324, 

4,  McGraw  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  18  W.  Va.  361,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  188,  41  Am.  Rep.  696;  Cobb  v. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  38  Iowa,  601; 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Haynes,  64 
Miss.  604;  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Tuckett  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  25  S.  W. 
150;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ben- 
son, 86  Ga.  203,  22  Am.  St.  Rep.  446; 
Hales  V,  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  B.  & 
S.  66,  116  E.  C.  L.  66,  32  L.  J.  Q.  B. 


292;     Wren   v.   Eastern   Counties   R. 
Co.,  1  L.  T.  N.  S.  5. 

5.  Cantwell  v.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.,  58 
Ark.  487,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas,  206, 
note;  Dixon  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
64  Iowa,  531,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
526,  52  Am.  Rep.  460;  McGraw  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  supra;  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Brinley  (Ky.), 
29  S.  W.  305;  International,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Ritchie  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  26 
S.  W.  840.  A  carrier  must  exercise 
reasonable  oare  in  selecting  a  route 
by  which  a  corpse  is  shipped,  and  is 
liable  for  damages  in  sending  it  by  a 
route  which  is  very  much  longer  than 
is  necessary.  Wells,  €tc..  Express  v. 
Fuller,  13  Tex.  Civ.  App.  610.  35  S. 
W.  824. 

6.  Waite  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  110  N.  Y.  635,  35  Am.  &  Eng, 
R.  Cas.  576;  Regan  v.  Grand  Trunk 
R.  Co.,  61  N.  H.  579;  Davis  v.  -Jack- 
sonville S.  E.  Line,  126  Mo.  69;  Ba)- 


LIABILITY  FOR  DELAY.  345^ 

delivery  is  within  common  knowledge  unusual  and  unnecessary 
may  be  sufficient  to  justify  a  finding  of  unreasonable" delay  attribu- 
table to  the  negligence  of  the  carrier,  unless  explained  by  circum- 
stances showing  the  cause  of  delay  to  have  been  such  as  the  carrier 
was  not  liable  for  and  which  furnish  a  valid  excuse.  But  diffi- 
culties in  the  way  of  transportation  known  to  the  carrier  at  the 
time  of  accepting  the  shipment  cannot  excuse  such  delay.'  An 
action  for  delay  in  transporting  freight  is  not  maintainable  where 
the  goods  reached  their  destination  in  the  time  usually  occupied 
in  the  journey,  and  there  was  no  special  undertaking  for  delivery 
in  a  fixed  time.*  Where  goods  are  sent  by  the  usual  route,  the 
carrier  must  use  reasonable  diligence,  and  whether  he  has  done  sa 
is  a  question  of  fact.®  The  specification  of  a  certain  time  as  a 
reasonable  time  for  the  transportation  of  property  by  a  common 
carrier  is  not  conclusive  upon  the  shipper,  and  does  not  relieve 
the  common  carrier  from  injuries  resulting  from  delay  caused  by 
its  negligence,  although  the  property  is  delivered  within  the  speci- 
fied time.^"     A  common  carrier  cannot  relieve  itself  by  contract 

timore,  etc.,  R.  €o.  v.  PuMphrey,  59  375,    71   Am.   Dec.   278;    Texas,   etc., 

Md.  390,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  331;  R.  Co.  v.  Boggs   (Tex.  Oiv.  App.),  3a 

International,  etc.,  R.   Ck>.  v.  Server,  S.   W.   1089;    Ormsby  v.  Union   Pac. 

3  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  440;   Bell  v.  R.  Co.,  4  Fed.  706,  2  McCrary  {U.  S.) 

Windsor,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  24  Nova  Sco-  48;    Mann  v.   Birchard,   40  Vt.   326; 

tia,  521;   Hunter  v.  Borst,   13  U.  C.  Ruddy  v.  Midland  Great  Western  R. 

Q.  B.  141;  Hawes  v.  Southeastern  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  8  Ir.  224. 

Co.,  54  L.  J.  Q.  B.  Div.  174,  52  L.  T.  8.  Lowe  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 

N.  S.  514;   Hales  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ga.  85,  15  S.  E.  692;   Atlan- 

Co.,  4  B.  &  S.  66,  116  E.  C.  L.  66,  32  tic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas  Grate   Co., 

L.  J.  Q.  B.  292.  81  Ga.  602. 

7.  St.    Clair    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R,  9.  Schwab   v.   Union   Line,    13   Mo. 

Co.,  80  Iowa,   304;    Chicago,   etc.,  R.  App.   159;   Hales  v.  London,  etc.,  R. 

Co.   v.   Simms,    18    HI.   App.   68;    St.  Co.,  4  B.  &  S.   70,  116  E.  C.  L.  70; 

Ix)uis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Heath,  41  Ark.  Johnson  v.  Midland  R.   Co.,  4  Exch. 

476,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  557;  Illi-  367;    Blakemore   v.    Lancashire,    etc., 

Hois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb,  64  111.  128 ;  R.  Co.,  1  F.  &  F.  76. 

Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  McClellan,  54  10.  Leonard    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

m.    58,    5   Am.     Rep.    83;     Michigan  Co.,  54  Mo.  App.  293. 
Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Day,  20  111. 


546 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


from  liability  for  its  own  negligence."  A  carrier  is  not  liable  as 
for  converting  goods  unreasonably  delayed,  in  the  absence  of  a 
demand  for  delivery  and  refusal  thereof  vs^hile  the  goods  are  in 
its  possession.^  A  carrier's  delay  in  delivering  goods  is  not  a  con- 
version thereof,  no  matter  how  long  continued,  so  as  to  make  it 
liable  for  their  value,  and  the  consignee  should  receive  them  when 
tendered  and  sue  for  damages  resulting  from  the  delay  in  de- 
li very.^^  In  the  absence  of  a  special  contract  with  the  carrier 
whereby  such  carrier  agrees  to  deliver  a  shipment  within  a  speci- 
fied time,  mere  delay  in  transportation  does  not  create  a  liability 
on  the  part  of  the  carrier  to  respond  in  damages."  Where  a  car- 
rier fails  or  refuses  to  accept  freight  tendered  it  for  transporta- 
tion because  of  its  inability  to  transport  it,  occasioned  by  extraor- 
dinary circumstances  or  an  emergency  that  could  not  have  been 
reasonably  foreseen  and  for  which  the  carrier  is  not  responsible, 
such  failure  or  refusal  gives  the  shipper  no  right  to  recover  for 
delay  in  transportation  of  the  freight  tendered,  where  the  carrier 
does  all  that  could  have  been  reasonably  required  of  it  to  meet  the 
demands  made  upon  it  for  transportation.^  A  carrier  being  in- 
formed, when  a  package  was  delivered  to  it  for  transportation, 
that  it  contained  medicine  for  a  sick  girl,  and  that  it  was  import- 
ant that  it  should  be  delivered  without  delay,  it  is  unnecessary  to 
recover  for  suffering  by  her  from  delay  in  its  delivery,  that  the 
order  for  the  medicine  made  by  her  father  and  doctor,  when  in 
fact  she  was  unconscious,  should  have  been  with  her  knowledge 

11.  Armstrong    v.     United     States  12.  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v   Moody,  169 

Express  Co.,  159  Pa.  St.  640,  28  Atl.  Ala.  292,  53  So.  1016. 

448 ;    Union    Pac.   R.    Co.    v.    Rainey  13.  Gulf,  etc.,  Ey.  Co.  v.  Somerville 

(Colo.),     34     Pac.     986;    Leonard    v.  Mercantile  Agency   (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

Chioago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    54   Mo.   App.  104  S.  W.  1072. 

293;   Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pars-  14.  Bacon    v.    Cleveland,    etc.,    Ry. 

ley,' 6  Tex.  Oir.  App.  150,  23   S.  W.  Co.,  155  111.  App.  40;  Shoot  v,  Cleve- 

64;   Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lawler  land,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  145  111.  App.  532. 

(Neb.),  58  N.  W.  968;  Atchison,  etc.,  15.  Seaboard  Air  Line  Ry.  v.  Rents 

R.  Co.  V.  Grant,  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  674,  &  Little,  60  Fla.  429,  54  So.  13. 
36  S.  W.  2?8. 


LIABILITY  FOR  DELAY.  347 

and  approval.^*  A  claim  for  loss  of  profits  by  being  compelled  to 
stop  an  electric  plant  because  a  shaft  used  therein  was  broken  en. 
route  and  returned  to  the  repair  shop  by  the  express  company  to 
be  repaired  before  it  was  forwarded  to  the  plant  was  based  upon 
the  owner's  being  deprived  of  the  use  of  the  shaft,  and  whether  the 
delay  was  caused  by  injury  to  the  shaft  or  by  other  reasons  was 
immaterial."  Though  a  consignor  of  goods  shipped  to  his  own 
order  may  divert  them  from  their  original  destination,  and  gen- 
erally this  is  not  changed  because  they  are  shipped  with  directions 
to  notify  the  proposed  vendee,  as  between  the  parties  that  right 
does  not  exist  when  the  carrier  has  given  a  bill  of  lading  for  the 
goods,  and  it  has  been  indorsed  and  forwarded  with  draft  attached 
to  the  proposed  vendee,  and  he  has  paid  it  and  taken  over  the  bill 
of  lading,  without  notice,  and  before  the  goods  would  have  reached 
their  original  destination  in  the  ordinary  course  of  shipment,  and 
in  the  latter  circumstances  the  proposed  vendee  may  recover 
against  the  carrier  or  shipper  damages  suffered  through  a  delay 
caused  by  diverting  a  shipment  and  replacing  it.^  A  carrier, 
charged  with  notice  of  the  purpose  of  machinery,  is  rendered  liable 
for  imreasonable  delay  in  shipment.^' 

§  2.  Usage  or  course  of  business. 

A  regulation  of  an  express  company,  declining  delivery  of 
freight,  including  dead  bodies,  from  night  trains  at  a  small  station 
where  no  night  office  is  maintained,  and  providing  for  carriage  to 
the  next  station  and  return  the  next  morning  to  the  destination,  is 
a  reasonable  rule.^    Where  it  is  a  general  and  uniform  custom  at 

16.  Hendrick's  AdmT.  v.  Ameri-  Farmers'  Union  Gin  Co.,  34  Okl.  270, 
can  Express  Co.,  138  Ky.  704,  1      S.      125  Pac.  894. 

W.  1089.  20.  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Hibbard, 

17.  Stone  y.  Adams  Express  Co.,  —      145  Ky.  818,  141  S.  W.  397. 

Ky.  — ,  122  S.  W.  200.  An     express     compvany     was     not 

18.  Davidson  Development  Co.  v.  bound  to  inform  the  consignee  of  a 
Southern  Ry.  Co.,  147  N.  C.  503,  61  dead  body  of  a  rule  preventing  de- 
8.  E.  381.  livery  at  night  at  a  station  where  no 

19.  St.    Louis   ft    S.    F.    R.    Co.   v.  night  office  was  maintained.     Id. 


54S 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


a  place  to  which  freight  is  consigned  not  to  give  notice  of  arrival 
or  to  make  delivery  on  the  Fourth  of  July,  negligence  cannot  bo 
predicated  on  the  failure  of  a  carrier  to  give  notice  or  make  de- 
livery on  that  day."  Where  the  custom  between  the  parties  is 
that  u  bill  of  lading  with  directions  shall  be  given  before  the  goods 
are  forwarded,  it  cannot  be  held  that,  because  packages  loaded  on 
the  claimants'  car  were  addressed  in  the  usual  way  to  the  depot 
quartermaster  in  New  York,  this  imposed  on  the  railroad  the  duty 
of  immediate  shipment.^ 

§  3.  Diligence  required  of  carrier. 

A  carrier  is  bound  to  do  all  that  is  reasonable  and  use  all  reason- 
able means  by  increasing  the  number  of  its  tracks  and  warehouse* 
to  accommodate  its  increased  business.^^  The  rule  that  a  carrier 
is  an  insurer  of  safe  delivery  does  not  apply  to  liability  for  delay 
of  transportation;  reasonable  care  only  being  required  to  avoid 
delay.^^  A  carrier  must  transport  property  received  for  trans- 
portation with  due  diligence.^^  Freight  must  be  transported  with 
all  reasonable  diligence  where  no  time  for  delivery  is  expressly 
agreed  upon.^^  The  law  implies  a  contract  on  the  part  of  a  carrier 
to  deliver  a  shipment  with  reasonable  promptness,  and  without 
unnecessary  delay.^^  A  carrier  was  not  liable  for  delay  in  the 
transportation  of  corn,  if  ordinary  care  and  diligence  was  used  in 
the  transportation  and  delivery  thereof  to  the  consignee.^  Notice 
to  a  carrier  of  special  circumstances  which  would  result  in  special 

21.  Pemieylvania  R.  Oo.  v.  Naive,  25.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  C5o.  v.  State, 
112  Tenn.  239,  79  S.  W.  124,  64  L.  R.       84  Ark.  150,  104  S.  W.  1106. 

A.  443.  26.  Harby  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  75 

22.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  S.  C.  321,  55  S.  E.  760;  Hoffman  v. 
United  States,  39  Ot.  CI.  (U.  S.)  405.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Pa.  Super. 

23.  Joynes  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  Ct.  47. 

235  Pa.  232,  83  Atl.  1016.  27.  St.    Louis    &    S.    F.    R,    Co.    v. 

24.  Delaney  v.  United  States  Ex-  Pearce,  82  Ark.  353,  101  S.  W.  760. 
press  Co.,  70  W.  Va.  502,  74  S.  E.  28.  St.  Louis  S.  W.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
512.  Thompson    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),   103  S. 

W.  684. 


LIABILITY  FOR  DELAY.  3i9 

damages  to  a  shipment  from  delay  in  transportation  of  machinery 
imposes  on  the  carrier  the  duty  to  use  diligence  commensurate 
with  the  requirements  of  the  case,  which  duty  the  carrier  performs 
when  he  uses  reasonable  diligence  to  forward  the  goods  promptly.^ 
The  words  "  promptly  and  without  delay,"  used  to  define  a  car- 
rier's duty  with  reference  to  the  transportation  of  goods,  mean 
"  with  reasonable  promptness,  and  without  unreasonable  delay."^ 
It  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier  to  make  provisions  for  operating  its 
trains  in  all  kinds  of  weather  that  may  be  reasonably  expected  in 
the  particular  latitude  in  which  it  is  operating.^^  It  is  the  duty  of 
a  common  carrier  to  forward  goods  delivered  for  transportation 
promptly  and  without  unreasonable  delay.^^  It  is  the  duty  of  a 
carrier  to  exercise  ordinary  diligence  to  transport  and  deliver  with 
promptness  goods  and  freight  delivered  to  it  for  transportation.^' 

§  4.  Liability  where  there  is  a  special  contract. 

It  is  a  well  settled  rule  that  where  the  law  creates  a  duty  or 
charge,  and  the  party  is  disabled  from  performing  it  without  any 
default  in  himself,  and  has  no  remedy  over,  then  the  law  will 
excuse  him;  but  where  the  party,  by  his  own  contract,  creates  a 
duty  or  charge  upon  himself,  he  is  bound  to  make  it  good,  notwith- 
standing any  accident  or  delay  by  inevitable  necessity,  because  he 
might  have  provided  against  it  by  contract.^*  Where  a  carrier, 
therefore,  undertakes,  by  special  contract,  to  transport  and  deliver 
goods  within  a  specified  time,  it  is  bound  to  do  so,  and  is  liable  for 
a  failure  to  deliver  within  the  prescribed  time,  and  is  not  excused 
by  an  inevitable  accident  or  other  contingency,  although  not  fore- 

29.  Ohicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Plant-      N.  W.  709,  69  L.  R.  A.  509,  110  Am. 
ers'  Gin  &  Oil  Co.,  88  Ark.  77,  113  S.      St.  Rep.  361. 

S.  W.  352.  33.  Houston  &  T.  C.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Fos- 

30.  Burlingame  v.   Adams   Express  ter   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  86  S.  W.  44. 
Co.,  171   Fed.  902.  34.  Beebe    v.    Johnson,    19    Wend. 

31.  Cleveland,     etc.,     Ry.     Co.     v.  (N.  Y.)    500;    Shubrick  v.   Salmond, 
Heath,  22  Ind.  App.  47,  53  N.  E.  198.  3    Burr.    1637;    Hadley   v.    Clarke,    8 

32.  Bibb  Broom  Corn  Co.  v.  Atchi-  T.  R.  259;  Hand  v.  Baynes,  4  Whart. 
Bon,  etc.,  Ry.  Co..  94  Minn.  269,   10?  'Pa.)   204,  3.^  Am.  Dec.  54. 


350 


THE  LAW  OF  CAEiaERS. 


seen  bv  or  within  the  control  of  the  carrier.  The  fault  of  the 
complaining  party  only  will  excuse  it.^^  No  temporary  obstruc- 
tion, or  even  the  absolute  impossibility  of  complying  with  the  en- 
gagement will  be  a  defense  to  an  action  for  failure  in  performing 
the  contract.^*  A  carrier  cannot  avoid  liability  for  breach  of  its 
contract  to  receive  and  transport  cattle  at  a  certain  time,  by  reason 
of  its  freedom  from  negligence  in  respect  to  the  delay,  in  the 


35.  2^.  r,— New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  87  N.  Y. 
487,  492;  McPherson  v.  Cox,  86  N. 
Y.  479;  Harmony  v.  Bingham,  12  N. 
Y.  99,  62  Am.  Dec.  142;  Van  Bus- 
kirk  V.  Roberts,  31  N.  Y.  661;  Ntl- 
son  V.  Odiorne,  45  N.  Y.  489;  Place 
V.  Union  Express  Co.,  2  Hilt.  (N.  Y.) 
19. 

XJ.  8. — The  Harriman,  9  Wall.  (U. 
S.)   161. 

/«.— Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Sim- 
mons, 49  111.  App.  443;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Thrapp,  5  111.  App.  502. 

7nd.— Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Racer,  5  Ind.  App.  209. 

loica. — Wood  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  68  Iowa,  491,  24  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  91,  56  Am.  Rep.  861. 

Mass. — Knowles  v.  Dabney,  105 
Mass.  437;  Higginson  v.  Weld,  14 
Gray  (Mass.),  165;  Tirrell  v.  Gage, 
4  Allen  (Mass.),  251;  Wareham  Bank 
V.  Burt,  5  Allen  (Mass.),  113;  Gage 
V.  Tirrell,  9  Allen   (Mass.),  299. 

Miss. — Jemison  v.  McDaniel,  25 
Miss.  83. 

Mo. — Myres  v.  Diamond  Joe  Line, 
58  Mo.  App.  199;  Harrison  v.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.,  74  Mo.  364,  41  Am. 
Rep.  318,  7  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  382; 
Collier  v.  Swinney,  16  Mo.  484;  Mil- 
ler V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Mo.  App. 
Rep.  474. 


N.  H. — Deming  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
Co.,  48  N.  H.  455,  2  Am.  Rep.  267. 

Pa. — Hand  v.  Baynes,  4  Whart. 
(Pa.)    204,  33  Am.  Dec.  54. 

Tea;.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCor- 
quodale,  71  Tex.  41,  35  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  653;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hodge  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  30  S.  W. 
829;  Texas  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Nicholson, 
61  Tex.  491,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
133. 

Eng. — Denton  v.  Great  Northern 
R.  Co.,  5  El.  &  Bl.  860,  85  E.  C.  D. 
860,  2  Jur.  N.  S.  185;  Hawcroft  v. 
Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  16  Jur.  196, 
21  L.  J.  Q.  B.  178;  Robinson  v.  Dun- 
more,  2  B.  &  P.  415. 

36.  Harrison  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  supra;  Miller  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  supra;  Harmony  v.  Bing- 
ham, supra,  where  a  public  canal  was 
rendered  impassible  by  an  unusual 
freshet;  Parmelee  v.  Wilks,  22  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  539;  Hodgdon  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Conn.  277,  33  Am.  Rep. 
21,  where  a  harbor  was  frozen;  Ayl- 
ward  V.  Smith,  2  Lowell  (U.  S.),  192; 
Parker  v.  Winslow,  7  El.  &  BI.  942, 
90  E.  C.  L,  942,  low  water  no  defense. 
Effect  of  stipulations. — In  a  con- 
tract of  a  common  carrier  for  the 
transportation  of  perishable  goods,  a 
stipulation  by  the  consignee  to  pay  a 
sum     in     addition     to     the     regular 


LIABILITY  FOR  DELAY.  351 

absence  of  a  proviso  to  that  effect."  But  a  carrier  is  not  liable  for 
breach  of  its  contract  to  deliver  a  car  at  a  certain  place  at  a  speci- 
fied time,  the  delay  being  caused  by  the  shipper's  failure  to  comply 
with  the  requirement  of  the  contract  that  the  car  be  loaded  in  time 
to  be  sent  out  on  a  certain  day  f^  or  by  some  other  act  of  the  com- 
plaining party  without  fault  of  the  carrier.^®  Ordinarily  the  bill 
of  lading  constitutes  the  contract  of  shipment  and  the  party  alleg- 
ing a  contract  to  transport  by  a  certain  day  must  prove  the  con- 
tract.^" Whether  there  was  such  a  special  contract  may  be  a  ques- 
tion for  the  jury  under  the  circumstances  of  a  given  case.*^  Where 
a  bill  of  lading  provides  for  shipment  upon  one  of  two  vessels,  the 
carrier  is  not  liable  for  delay  because  of  a  shipment  on  the  vessel 
departing  later,  where,  upon  the  undisputed  facts,  the  goods  were 
not  presented  for  transportation  within  such  reasonable  time  as 
to  make  it  the  carrier's  duty  to  ship  by  the  vessel  going  earlier, 
and  a  receipt  for  the  goods,  which  is  a  mere  acknowledgment  that 
the  property  has  passed  into  the  custody  of  the  carrier,  and  is  to 

freight,  if  the  property  should  be  de-  sequent    rescission    of    such    contract, 

livered   by   a   certain   date,   does   not  that  he  was  subsequently  informed  by 

constitute    an   agreement     to    deliver  another  person  "  in  the  employ  of  the 

the    goods    by     that    date.      Carr    v.  company,"  that  the  goods  could  not  ba 

.Schafer,  15  Ck)lo.  48,  24  Pac.  873.  sent  by  that  train  if  the  cars  should 

Where  the  carrier  agrees  to  deduct  be   full,    it   not   appearing  that   such 

a  certain  sum   from   the   freight   for  person   was   a    freight    agent   of    the 

each     day's    delay   beyond     the    time  company.     Curtis  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  11. 

specified  for  delivery,  this  is  not  an  Co.,  18  Wis.  312. 

alternative  covenant  to  that  for  the  37.  Gann   v.   Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co., 

transportation  of  the  property,  but  is  72  Mo.  App.  34. 

in  the  nature  of  liquidated  damages  38.  Stoner  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

for  the  non-performance  of  the  cove-  109  Iowa,  551,  80  N.  W.  569. 

nant    for    transportation.      Harmony  39.  Thompson   v.   Midland    R.  Co., 

v.  Bingham,  12  N.  Y.  99,  62  Am.  Dec.  122  Ala.  378,  24  So.  931. 

142.  40.  Bedell   v.     Richmond,     etc.,    R. 

Rescission  of  contract. — Where  one  Co.,  94  Ga.  22. 

contracted  with  the  freight  agent  of  41.  Pickford  v    Grand  Junction  R. 

a  railroad  company,  for  the  transpor-  Co.,  12  M.  &  W.  766;  International, 

tation  of  goods  upon  a  particular  day  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wentworth,  i87  Tex.  31J 
end  train,  it  la  no  evidence  of  a  sub- 


352 


THE  LAW  OF  CARKIERS. 


be  surrendered  upon  the  receipt  of  the  bill  of  lading,  cannot  vary 
the  contract  or  change  the  rights  of  the  parties  as  fixed  by  the 
bill  of  lading/^  A  written  transportation  contract  which  is  silent 
as  to  the  time  of  shipment  contains  an  implied  obligation  to  ship 
within  a  reasonable  time  after  the  goods  are  delivered,  and  cannot 
be  modified  by  parol  evidence  of  an  undertaking  to  ship  on  a 
certain  train/^ 

§  5.  Liability  where  there  are  special  instructions  by  the  shipper. 

If  the  common  carrier  receives  goods  with  orders  to  "  ship 
immediately,"  or  to  "  forward  presently,"  and  the  goods  are  stored 
in  its  warehouse  or  depot  on  account  of  the  obstruction  to  naviga- 
tion or  transportation,  or  for  the  convenience  of  the  carrier,  and 
while  there  consumed  by  fire,  it  is  liable  for  their  value/*  Where 
a  cartman,  without  authority  from  the  owner  of  the  goods,  gives 
the  carrier  directions  in  regard  to  them,  different  from  instruc- 
tions previously  given  by  the  owner,  the  company  is  not  protected 
by  them/^  An  agreement  by  a  shipper  to  permit  his  goods  to  be, 
sent  to  a  destination  different  from  that  agreed  upon  in  a  bill  of 
lading,  after  a  failure  on  the  part  of  the  carrier  to  comply  witl- 
its  contract,  will  not  prevent  him  from  recovering  the  damage:-* 
which  may  have  resulted  from  the  breach  of  the  contract  made 
by  the  carrier.*® 

§  6.  Liability   under   statutes  requiring  prompt   forwarding   ot 
freight. 
Statutes  relating  to  railroad  companies  as  carriers  which  re- 
quire them  to  furnish  suitable  cars,  on  reasonable  notice,  when 
within  their  power  to  do  so,  are  merely  declaratory  of  the  common 

42.  Fowler  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  44.  Clark  v.  Needles,  25  Pa.  St. 
Steam  Co.,  87  N.  Y.  190,  9  Am.  &  338;  Moses  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  235,  37  Fed.  434.  N.  H.  (4  Fost.)   71. 

43.  Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Clark,  2  45.  Moses  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
Ind.  App.  146,  28  N.  E.  208,  27  N.  E.  supra. 

586.  46.  Skellie  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

SI  Ga.  56,  6  S.  E.  811. 


LIABILITY  FOR  DELAY.  353 

law  duty  of  the  carrier,  though  providing  better  for  the  enforce- 
ment of  it.*''  In  a  suit  under  such  a  statute  to  recover  for  a  delay 
in  furnishing  cars,  the  complainant  must  aver  reasonable  notice, 
and  that  it  was  within  the  power  of  the  company,  at  the  time,  to 
furnish  suitable  cars.*^  In  the  exercise  of  its  general  police  power, 
the  legislature  can  constitutionally  impose  on  railroads  within  the 
State  a  penalty  for  each  day's  delay  to  transport  goods  duly  de- 
livered to  them  for  the  purpose,*®  and  such  a  statute  is  not  an 
unconstitutional  regulation  of  interstate  commerce  as  to  freight 
for  shipment  out  of  the  State,  as  it  does  not  tend  to  trammel  or 
obstruct,  but  to  expedite,  such  commerce.^''  The  five  days  within 
which,  under  the  North  Carolina  statute,  a  railroad  company 
must  forward  freight  or  answer  in  damages,  are  five  full  running 
days,  exclusive  of  the  day  of  delivery  and  the  day  of  shipment, 
and  including  Sunday  when  it  intervenes.^^  It  is  not  a  good  de- 
fence to  an  action  under  the  statute  for  failure  to  ship  promptly, 
or  to  an  action  for  breach  of  contract  to  furnish  cars  for  shipment 
of  goods  at  a  certain  date,  that  the  accumulation  of  freight  or  the 
shipment  of  goods  over  the  line  at  that  time  was  so  great  that  the 
carrier  did  not  have  or  was  unable  to  secure  the  necessary  cars 
for  shipment.^^  But  where  the  bill  of  lading  contained  a  clause 
that  the  g^ods  were  to  be  shipped  "  at  the  company's  convenience," 
the  carrier  was  held  not  liable  to  the  penalty  under  similar  cir- 

47.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  Smith,  84  N.  C.  688,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
63  Tex.  322,  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R,  Cas.      Cas.  464. 

421.     See  also,  §  10,  chap.  3.  50.  Bagg    v.    Wilmington,    etc.,    R. 

48.  Richardson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  N.  C.  279.  26  Am.  St.  Rep. 
Co.,  61  Wis.  596,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  569,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  46; 
Cas.  530.  Keeter  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86 

49.  Branch  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  N.  C.  346,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  167. 
Co.,  77  N.  C.  347;  McGowan  v.  Wil-  51.  Branch  v.  Wilmington,  etc., 
mington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   95  N.   C.   417,  R.  Co.,  88  N.  C.  570. 

27   Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cos.   64;    White-  52.  Keeter  v.  Wilmington,   etc.,  R. 

head  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   87  Co.,     sttpra;     Gulf,     et«.,    R.    Co.    v. 

N.  C.  255,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  168;  Hume.   6   Tex.   Civ.   App.   653,   27   S. 

Katzenstein  v.  Raleigh,   etc.,  R.   Co.,  W.  110. 
Of. 


OJ-i 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


cumstances,  which  the  company  could  not  have  been  expected  to 
jirovide  against.^^  Though  a  carrier  delays  the  delivery  of  freight 
for  four  months,  the  consignee  must  accept  it  when  tendered  and 
rely  on  his  right  to  recover  for  negligent  delay,  notwithstanding 
a  statute  making  a  carrier  liable  for  loss  of  or  damage  to  goods 
and  a  penalty  for  failure  to  adjust  the  claim  therefor  within  a  time 
limited.^* 


§  7.  Delay  in  delivering  perishable  freight. 

Under  the  common  law  the  obligation  of  a  common  carrier 
receiving  perishable  freight  for  transportation  was  to  forward  it 
immediately  to  its  destination.  In  New  York  there  was  a  statute 
in  force  imposing  this  duty  (Chap.  140,  §  36,  Laws  1850),  which 
w-as  repealed  by  the  Kailroad  Act  of  1892,  but  the  common  law 
obligation  still  remains  to  receive  and  transport  the  freight  within 
a  reasonable  time,  considering  its  character,  to  the  place  of  destina- 
tion.^^ Where  the  goods  are  perishable  or  are  peculiarly  liable  to 
injury  from  delay,  the  carrier  is  bound  to  take  reasonable  means 
to  guard  against  such  injuries  and  to  use  special  diligence  to  avoid 
delay  in  its  transportation,^®    The  carrier  is  not  liable  for  injuries 


53.  Whitehead  v.  Wilmington,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  87  N.  C.  255,  9  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  168. 

54.  Bullock  V.  Charleston,  etc.,  Ry. 
Co.,  83  S.  C.  375,  64  S.  E.  234. 

55.  Tierney  v.  New  York  Cent., 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y.  308;  Aetna  In- 
BiTrance  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  49  N.  Y.  616; 
Mills  V.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  45  N. 
Y.  622;  Livingston  v.  New  York 
Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y.  631; 
Cartwright  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85 
Hun  (N.  Y.),  517,  33  N.  Y.  Supp. 
147;  Cantwell  v.  Pacific  Express  Co., 
58  Ark.  487,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
206,  note;  Mc Andrew  v.  Whitlock,  52 
N.  Y.  40. 

56.  Michigan   Cent.  R.  Co.  v.   Cur- 


tis, 80  111.  324;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.  Cornwall,  70  Tex.  611,  8  S.  W. 
312;  Sherman  v.  Inman  Steamship 
Co.,  26  Hun  (N.  Y.),  107;  St.  Clair, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
80  Iowa,  304,  42  Am.  &  Eng,  R.  Cas. 
414;  Central,  etc.,'  R.  Co.  v.  Avant, 
80  Ga.  195,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
475;  Blodgett  v.  Abbot,  72  Wis.  516, 
7  Am.  St.  Rep.  873,  carriage  over  con- 
necting line;  McGraw  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  W.  Va.  361,  9  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  188,  41  Am.  Rep.  696; 
Hewett  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 
Iowa,  611,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
568;  Wood  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
68  Iowa,  491,  56  Am.  Rep.  861,  24 
Am.   &   Eng.  R.   Cas.   91,  the  carrier 


LIABILITY  FOR  DELAY. 


355 


caused  by  intrinsic  defects  or  inherent  qualities  in  such  goods." 
And  the  owner  of  such  goods  who  chooses  to  ship  them  under 
circumstances  where  they  are  apt  to  be  exposed  to  risks,  in  the 
absence  of  a  special  contract  otherwise,  assumes  the  risks  incident 
to  ordinary  transportation.^  Generally  it  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier 
to  forward  perishable  property  as  speedily  as  the  exigencies  of 
its  freight  traffic  will  permit,  even  to  the  exclusion  of  other  general 
freight  not  of  a  perishable  nature.^^  There  is  no  invariable  rule 
requiring  freight  to  be  carried  in  the  order  in  which  it  is  received, 
without  regard  to  its  character  or  condition,  or  its  liability  to 
perish,  and  it  is  quite  generally  held  that  the  carrier  may  and 
should  give  preference  in  transportation  to  perishable  goods  over 
non-perishable  goods,  if  it  is  unable  to  forward  both  at  once.^  If 
an  unavoidable  delay  occurs,  the  carrier  must  exercise  sound 
discretion  and  reasonable  diligence  in  forwarding  perishable  goods 
to  their  destination.  If  it  does  not  appear,  in  the  exercise  of  such 
discretion,  that  a  change  of  route  would  prevent  the  loss  attendant 
upon  delay,  it  is  not  bound  to  divert  the  goods  to  a  route  over 
which  it  has  no  control.  It  may  sell  the  goods  for  the  best  price 
it  can  obtain,  and  thus  convert  what  would  be  inevitably  a  total 
loss  to  the  shipper  into  one  that  is  partial  merely. ^^     A  carrier, 

is  bound  by  the  oral  contract  of   a  Xorth  Missouri  R.  Co.,  40  Mo.  491, 

station  agent  having  express  author-  93  Am.  Dec.  315. 

ity.  60    Marshall    v.    New    York    Cent. 

57.  American  Expre^  Co.  v.  R.  Co.,  45  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  502,  affd. 
Smith,  33  Ohio  St.  511,  31  Am.  Rep.  48  N.  Y.  660;  Tiemey  v.  New  York 
561;  Evans  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  Ill  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y.  305, 
Mass.  142;  Brown  v.  Clayton,  12  Ga.  affg.  10  Hun  (N.  Y.),  569,  67  Barb. 
580;  Ship  Howard  v,  Wissman,  IS  (N.  Y.)  538;  Cooper  v.  Kane,  19 
How.  (U.  S.)  231;  The  Brig  CoHen-  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  386,  32  Am.  Dec. 
berg,  1  Black  fU.  S.),  170;  Warden  512;  Peet  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
v.  Greer,  6  Watts    (Pa.),  424.  20  Wis.  594,  91  Am.  Dec.  446;  Michi- 

58.  Swetland  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  gan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Burrows,  33 
On.,  102  Mass.  276.  Mich.    6;    Great   Western    R,    Co.    v. 

59.  Dixon  v.  Chicago,   etc.,  R.  Co.,  Bums,  60  111.  284. 

ft4  Iowa.  531,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Oas.  61.  American      Express       Co.       v. 

S2G,  52   Am.  Rep.  460;   Ballentine  v.      Smith,  33  Ohio  St.  511,  31  Am.  Rep. 

.'SRI. 


;3^0  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

on  receiving  fruit  for  transportation,  is  bound  to  forward  it  to 
its  destination  immediately.'^^  Hay  not  being  perishable  mer- 
chandise, a  carrier  is  not  called  upon  to  put  forth  unusual  efforts 
to  remove  the  same  when  delivered  to  it  for  transportation.^  An 
express  company  is  liable  for  damages  to  fruit  injured  by  delay 
in  its  transportation.^*  Where  a  carrier's  agent  consented,  when 
requested,  to  place  a  car  of  perishable  fruit  in  position  for  un- 
loading and  failed  to  do  so  and  the  fruit  decayed,  the  carrier  was 
liable  for  its  negligent  failure.^  A  carrier  of  perishable  fruit 
owes  only  the  duty  of  exercising  reasonable  care  to  protect  it  from 
injury,  in  the  absence  of  any  special  contract  as  to  the  time  of 
delivery.^  Under  a  statute  providing  that  trains  laden  exclu- 
sively with  vegetables  and  fruit  may  run  on  Sunday,  and  such 
freight  trains  as  may  be  in  transit  which  can  reach  their  destina- 
tion by  six  o'clock  in  the  forenoon  may  run  on  Sunday,  a  carrier 
of  perishable  fruit  may  not  excuse  a  delay  in  the  transportation 
on  Sunday  in  the  absence  of  testimony  explaining  why  a  train 
did  not  go  to  the  point  of  destination  on  Saturday  evening,  and 
why  such  train  or  another  train  could  not  reach  the  destination 
before  six  o'clock  Sunday  morning." 

§  8.  Delay  must  have  been  the  proximate  cause  of  injury. 

A  common  carrier  is  not  liable  to  a  shipper  or  consignee  for  loss 
or  injury  resulting  from  delay  in  the  shipment  or  transportation 
of  goods,  unless  the  delay  was  the  proximate  cause  of  the  loss  or 

62.  Frey  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  Facts  held  insufficient  to  -warrant 
E.  Co.,  114  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  747,  a  finding  of  damage  by  reason  of  de- 
100  N.  Y.  Supp.  225.  lay.      San   Antonio,   etc.,   Ry.    Co.   v. 

63.  Strough  v.  New  York  Cent.,  Tliompson  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  66  S.  W. 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  181  N.  Y.  533,  73  N.  E.  792. 

1133,  affg.  judg.  92  App.  Div.  584,  87  66.  Pennsylvania   R.   Co.   v.   Clark, 

N.  Y.  Supp.  30.  118  Md.  514,  85  Atl.  613. 

64.  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Williams,  67.  Trakaa  v.  Charleston  &  W.  O. 
—  Ark.  — ,  14  S.  W.  40.  Ry.  Co.,  87  S.  C.  206,  69  S.  E.  209. 

65.  Texas   &   P.   Ry.   Oo.   v.   Payne 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  156  S.  W.  1126. 


LIABILITY  FOR  DELAY. 


357 


injury,  as,  for  example,  where  the  goods  were  destroyed  or  in- 
jured by  fire,  for  which  the  carrier  was  not  responsible,  although 
the  goods  were  exposed  to  loss  or  injury  by  negligent  delay  in 
transmission,  the  delay  not  being  shown  to  be  the  proximate  cause 
of  the  loss  or  injury.^  But  the  carrier  is  liable  in  all  cases  where 
the  delay  is  shown  to  have  been  the  proximate  cause,  as,  where  the 
carrier  negligently  allowed  compressed  cotton  to  accumulate  in 
large  quantities  and  failed  to  transport  it  promptly,  or  permitted 
it  to  lie  on  the  platform  where  engines  were  constantly  passing,  the 
negligent  delay  in  removing  the  cotton  from  a  place  of  necessary 
danger  being  the  proximate  cause  of  loss.^^  So,  if  a  common  car- 
rier negligently  fails  to  transport  merchandise  within  a  reasonable 
time,  and  the  market  price  falls,  the  negligent  delay,  although 
it  does  not  cause  the  decline  in  the  general  market,  deprives  the 
owner  of  his  right  to  the  higher  market  price,  and  thus  is  the 
proximate  cause  of  this  loss  to  him.^"    A  verdict  against  a  carrier 


68.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  Millsaps, 
76  Miss.  &55,  71  Am.  St.  Rep.  542, 
25  So.  673;  Thomas  v.  Lancaster 
Mills,  34  U.  S.  App.  404,  71  Fed.  481, 
19  C.  C.  A.  88;  Morrison  v.  Davis,  20 
Pa.  St.  171,  57  Am.  Dec.  701,  note; 
Scott  V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Steamboat 
Co.,  19  Fed.  56. 

A  railroad  company  is  not  liable 
foT  injury  to  freight  resulting  from 
exposure  to  mud  and  rain,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  company's  violation  of 
its  contract  with  the  road  over  which 
the  freight  was  shipped  to  maintain 
a  narrow  guage  track  for  the  benefit 
of  that  road,  as  the  exposure  and  not 
the  failure  to  maintain  the  track  is 
the  proximate  cause  of  injury.  St. 
Tvouis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Neel,  56  Ark. 
279,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  428,  19 
6.  W.  963,  12  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  110. 
But  a  common  carrier  is  liable  for 
the  loss  of  a  shipment  bv  fire  which 


would  not  have  occurred  if  it  had 
shipped  the  property  immediately  as 
it  agreed  to  do.  Hernsheim  v,  New- 
port News,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
227,  35  S.  W.  1115. 

69.  Marine  Ins.  Oo.  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  643,  43  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cias.  79,  19  Ins.  L.  J.  379, 
695;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  McFad- 
den,  89  Tex.  138,  33  S.  W.  853. 

70.  Ward  v.  New  York  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  47  N.  Y.  29,  7  Am.  Rep.  405; 
Zinn  V.  New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co., 
49  N.  Y.  442,  10  Am.  Rep.  402 ;  Sher- 
man V.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  64  N. 
Y.  259;  Dunham  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  70  Me.  164,  35  Am.  Rep.  314; 
Kent  V.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  22 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  278:  Medbury  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
564,  overruling  Wibert  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  36; 
-Tone^t  V.   NeM'  York,   etc.,    R.   Co.,   20 


358 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


for  delay  in  transporting  perishable  merchandise  will  be  sus- 
tained where  it  is  admitted  that  the  goods  were  in  good  condition 
when  placed  in  the  car,  but  were  worthless  when  the  car  was 
opened  after  it  arrived  at  its  destination,  and  the  evidence  is  con- 
flicting on  other  points.''^  It  is  not  error  to  submit  to  the  jury 
the  question  whether  a  delay  of  three  days  was  the  cause  of  tlie 
loss  of  perishable  goods,  where  three  witnesses  experienced  lu 
shipping,  te^ified  that  when  the  car  was  opened  the  goods  indi- 
cated that  decay  had  commenced  within  two  or  three  daysJ" 

§  9.  Waiver  of  right  of  action  for  delay. 

A  delay  probably  injurious  being  shown,  it  is  admissible  to 
show  that,  before  starting,  the  plaintiff  consented  to  a  delay,  if 
necessary,  and  such  consent  will  constitute  a  waiver  of  any  right 
of  action  against  the  carrier  for  negligent  delay  in  the  transporta- 
tion.'^^  A  demand  for  or  acceptance  of  the  goods,  in  whole  or  part, 
after  the  accrual  of  a  right  of  action  for  delay  is  not  a  waiver  of 
the  right  of  action  for  damages  for  the  delay.''*  Interference  by 
the  owner,  by  giving  directions  as  to  the  care  of  property  which 
is  stopped  by  the  freezing  of  a  river,  is  not,  conclusively,  an  ac- 
ceptance of  the  property.'^ 

§  10.  Excuses  for  delay  generally. 

In  the  absence  of  a  special  contract,  the  carrier  is  liable  only 

Barb.     (N.    Y.)     633;     Kirkland    v.  N.  S.  403,  36  W.  N.  C.  210,  31  Atl. 

Leary,  2  Sw.    (N.  Y.)    677.     And  the  478,  46  Am.  St.  Rep.  686. 

measure  of  damages  is  the  diflFerenee  73.  Johnson    v.    Lightsey,    34    Ala. 

in  value  at  the  place  of  delivery  at  169,  73  Am.  Dec.  450. 

the  time  when  it  ought  to  have  been  74.  Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Cole,  68  Ga. 

delivered   and  at  the  time  of   actual  623;  Lowe  v.  Moss,  12  111.   (2  Peck) 

delivery.     Id.     Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  477;    Nudd   v.    Wells,    11    Wis.   407; 

V    Heilprin,  95  111.  App.  402.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shippers  Com- 

71.  St.    Clair   v.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.  press  Co.,  83  Va.  272,  2  S.  E.  139,  30 
Co.,  80  Iowa,  304,  45  N.  W.  570,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Oaa.  57. 

Am'.  &  Eng.  R  Cas.  414.  75.  Bowman  v.  Teall,  23  Wend.  (N. 

72.  Ruppel  V.  Alleghany  Valley  R.      Y.)  306,  35  Am.  Dec.  562. 
Co.,  167  Pa.  St.  166,  25  Pitts.  L.  .T. 


LIABILITY  FOR  DELAY. 


359 


for  negligent  delay,  and  is  not  liable  for  delay  resulting  from  a 
cause  not  due  to  its  own  want  of  care  or  diligence.  It  is  the  duty 
of  a  common  carrier  to  convey  the  goods  without  an  unnecessary 
delay  or  deviation;  but  it  may  be  necessary  for  the  safe  carriage 
of  the  goods  that  it  should  either  delay,  or  deviate  in  its  course, 
and  it  is  then  justified  in  so  doing.  In  respect  to  the  time  to  be 
occupied  in  transporting  property,  the  carrier  is  not  held  to  the 
extraordinary  liability  to  which  it  is  held  for  its  safety  while  in 
its  custody,  and  it  may  excuse  delay  in  its  delivery  by  proof  of 
misfortune  or  accident,  although  not  inevitable  or  produced  by 
the  act  of  God.^®  Where  there  is  a  special  contract  for  delivery 
within  a  fixed  time,  as  we  have  seen,  the  only  excuse  for  delay 
that  is  valid  is  that  the  delay  was  due  to  the  fault  of  the  party  with 
whom  the  contract  was  made.^^  A  carrier  is  not  responsible  for 
failure  to  deliver  in  due  time,  if  prevented  by  inevitable  accident, 
such  as  a  railroad  collision  or  blockade  occurring  on  the  line  of 


76.  Greismer  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  563,  55  Am.  Rep. 
837,  26  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  287,  revg. 
34  Hun  (N.  Y.),  50;  Livingston  v. 
New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Hun 
(N.  Y.),  562,  a  railroad  company  is 
not  liable  for  delay  caused  by  the 
breaking  down  of  a  freight  car  on 
another  line;  Parsons  v.  Hardy,  14 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  215,  28  Am.  Dec.  521; 
Lowe  V.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
90  Ga.  85;  Johnson  v.  East  Tennes- 
see, etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ga.  810;  Truax 
V.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Houst. 
(Del.)  233;  Kinnick  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  69  Iowa,  665,  27  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  55;  Dixon  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  64  Iowa,  531,  52  Am.  Rep. 
460,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  425;  In- 
ternational, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hynes,  3 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  20;  Gerhard  v.  Neese, 
36  Tex.  635;  Conkey  v.  Milwaukee, 
«tc.,  R.  CV>.,  31  Wis.  619,  2  Am.  Ry. 


Rep,  353,  11  Am.  Rep.  630;  Ameri- 
can Express  Co.  v.  Smith,  33  Ohio 
St.  511,  31  Am.  Rep.  561;  Nashville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Jackson,  6  Heisk. 
(Tenn.)  271,  12  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  54; 
Lamont  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9 
Heisk.  (Tenn.)  58,  19  Am.  Ry.  Rep. 
284;  Whitworth  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  87 
N.  Y.  413,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  349, 
a  carrier  is  not  liable  for  delay 
caused  by  the  neglect  of  a  succeeding 
carrier  to  receive  the  goods  when  ten- 
dered; Wallace  v.  Dublin,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
8  Ir.  R.  C.  L.  341;  Taylor  v.  Great 
Northern  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  1  C.  P.  386, 
12  Jur.  N.  S.  372,  14  W.  R.  639; 
Davis  V.  Garrett,  6  Ring.  716,  19  E.  C- 
L.  212;  Hadley  v.  Clarke,  8  T.  R.  259. 
77.  Harrison  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  74  Mo.  364,  7  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Oas. 
382,  41  Am.  Rep.  318,  See  also  cases 
cited  under  §  4,  ante. 


3(50  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

another  company,  or  without  fault  or  negligence  on  the  part  of 
the  carrier."^  Proof  by  the  consignee  of  a  delay  in  delivery  estab- 
lishes a  prima  facie  case,  and  puts  the  burden  on  the  carrier  to 
prove  circumstances  excusing  the  delay,  by  showing  that  it  was 
due  to  causes  for  which  it  was  not  responsible.^*  A  carrier  cannot 
justify  a  delay  in  delivery  from  a  failure  to  place  a  solid  car  ship- 
ment where  it  could  be  unloaded  after  its  arrival  on  the  ground 
that  the  consignee  did  not  tender  the  freight,  unless  notice  was 
given  of  the  arrival  of  the  car  and  a  demand  made  for  the  freight.^"* 
Where  a  carrier  accepted  an  automobile  for  shipment,  it  is  liable 
for  an  unreasonable  delay  in  the  shipment  and  its  temporary  in- 
ability to  secure  a  car  large  enough  to  hold  the  automobile  will 
not  exonerate  it.^^  Where  the  breach  of  a  carrier's  undertaking 
was  alleged  to  be  a  failure  to  exercise  due  care  and  diligence  in 
making  delivery,  the  carrier  could  allege  as  a  defense  any  facts 
which  the  law  recognizes  as  an  excuse  for  delay,  though  no  exemp- 
tion from  liability  on  such  ground  was  in  the  contract  of  ship- 
ment.^^  A  carrier  will  not  be  excused  from  liability  for  the  con- 
sequences of  an  unusual  delay  in  transportation  caused  by  an  act 
of  God,  where  the  disability  is  existent  and  known  to  the  carrier 
at  the  time  the  property  is  received  for  shipment,  and  the  carrier 
fails  to  advise  the  shipper  of  the  existing  conditions  and  to  stipu- 
late against  their  consequences.*^  Where  a  carrier  was  liable  for 
injuries  to  a  shipment  of  corn,  because  it  was  bound  to  deliver  the 

78.  Oonger  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  82.  Missouri,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  of  Texaa 
6  Duer  (N.  Y,),  375;  Taylor  v.  v.  Stark  Grain  Co.,  103  Tex.  543,  131 
Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  supra.  S   W,  410,  modifying  (Civ.  App.)  120 

79.  Place  v.  Union  Express  Co.,  2  S.  W.  1146,  to  relieve  a  carrier  from 
Hilt.  (N.  Y.)  19;  St.  Clair  v.  Chi-  liability  for  delay  in  delivery  due  to  a 
cago,  etc.,  R.  Oo.,  80  Iowa,  304,  42  congestion  of  traffic,  the  shipper  must 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  414;  Mann.  v.  be  notified  of  such  condition  before 
Birchard,  40  Vt.  326.  See  also  Bur-  the  shipment  is  received,  in  the  ab- 
den  of  proof,  chap.  14.  sence  of  an  express  agreement  of  ex- 

80.  Georgia,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  emption. 

3  Ga.  App.  773,  60  S.  E.  363.  83.  Thero  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.  Co., 

81.  Grigsby  v.  Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.       144  Mo.  App.  161,  129  S.  W.  266. 
(Tex.  Oiv.  App.)   137  S.  W.  709. 


LIABILITY  FOR  DELAY. 


361 


com  in  a  reasonable  time,  where  the  consignee  called  for  the  same 
within  a  reasonable  time,  notifying  the  carrier  that  the  corn  was 
shipped  to  be  dried,  and  required  immediate  handling,  the  refusal 
to  deliver  because  there  were  other  car  loads  of  grain  that  had 
precedence  under  its  rule  did  not  relieve  it  from  liability.**  Re- 
sults attributed  to  a  defective  roadbed  and  defective  equipment 
afford  no  excuse  for  the  nonperformance  of  a  carrier's  duty  to 
safely  deliver  a  shipment  at  its  destination  within  a  reasonable 
time.*^  Railroad  companies  are  not  responsible  for  delays  occa- 
sioned by  accidents,  but  are  responsible  where  such  delays  are 
attributable  to  their  own  negligence.*®  Railroads  are  not  bound 
to  be  prepared  for  unusual  and  extraordinary  contingencies,  such 
as  the  great  Chicago  fire,  which  no  ordinary  prudence  or  foresight 
could  reasonably  foresee  or  anticipate."  When  a  superintendent  of 
a  railroad  receives  an  order  relating  to  passengers,  to  the  effect 
that  trains  will  not  be  allowed  to  stop  at  a  quarantined  town,  he 
has  a  reasonable  time  to  ascertain  whether  the  order  applies  to 
freight,  before  the  road  can  be  held  liable  for  receiving  goods 
which  it  cannot  deliver.**  Where  the  carrier  recognized  the  trans- 
fer of  title  to  goods  in  its  possession  by  the  consignee,  without 
asking  for  the  production  and  surrender  of  the  bill  of  lading,  and 
agreed  to  deliver,  and  did  deliver,  the  property  to  the  buyer  after 
an  unreasonable  delay,  it  was  no  defense  to  the  buyer's  right  to 
recover  for  such  delay  that  it  could  not  require  defendant  to  carry 
out  its  contract  for  failure  to  show  an  assignment  of  the  bill  of 
lading.**    A  carrier  will  not  be  relieved  from  liability  to  the  owner 

84.  W.  R.  Hall  Grain  Co.  v.  Louis-  86.  St.  Jx)uis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v. 
ville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  148  Mo.  App.  308,  Dean,  (Texas  Civ.  App.)  152  S.  W. 
128  S.  W.  42.                                                     1127. 

A    carrier    delaying    the    delivery  87.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Bur- 

of  freight  may  not  excuse  the  delay  rows,  33  Mich.  6. 

on  the  ground  that  the  bills  of  lading  88.  Alabama  &  V.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hayne, 

•were  not  presented,  where  it  did  not  76  Miss.  538,  24  So.  907. 

decline  to  deliver  because   thereof.    Id.  89.  Russell    Grain    Co.    v.    Wabash 

85.  Thompson  v.  Quincy,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  114  Mo.  App.  488,  89  S.  W. 
Co.,    136   Mo.    App.    404,    117    S.    W.  908. 

1193. 


5(52  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

of  goods  for  failure  to  transport  the  goods  within  a  reasonable 
time  bj  showing  that  the  party  whom  it  was  directed  by  the  bill 
of  lading  to  "  notify  "  instructed  it  not  to  deliver  the  goods ;  such 
party  not  being  at  the  time  in  the  possession  of  the  bill  of  lading 
nor  entitled  to  its  possession^  Where  a  railway  company  re- 
ceived freight  with  charges  paid  in  advance,  and  at  the  point  of 
delivery  the  local  agent  demanded  payment  of  additional  freight 
charges  under  a  different  classification  and  payment  of  a  former 
freight  bill  and  refused  to  deliver  the  freight  until  such  payment, 
And  after  seven  days  the  company  made  delivery  without  com- 
pelling payment  of  the  claims,  the  demand  for  payment  for  the 
former  shipment  and  the  refusal  to  deliver  preclude  any  inquiry 
into  the  merits  of  the  other  demand,  and  the  company  is  liable  for 
the  value  of  the  use  of  the  shipment  for  the  time  it  was  unlawfully 
withheld.^^  Where  property  is  in  the  hands  of  a  carrier,  and  pos- 
session is  demanded  by  a  stranger  to  the  bill  of  lading,  prior  to 
actual  shipment,  the  carrier,  having  reasonable  doubt  as  to  what 
party  is  entitled  to  possession,  may  delay  immediate  shipment  to 
investigate.®^ 

§  11.  Unusual  floods  and  storms. 

Where  there  is  no  special  contract,  an  unavoidable  delay  result- 
ing from  an  unusual  flood,  or  a  storm  of  such  magnitude  as  to 
obstruct  traffic,  excuses  the  carrier  from  liability  for  such  delay, 
provided  it  has  exercised  proper  care  to  avoid  the  obstructions 
occasioned  thereby,  and  proceeds  with  the  transportation  and  de- 
livery as  soon  as  traffic  is  practicable.®*     A  sudden  snow  storm 

90.  Florida  Cent.  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  33  Ohio  St,  511,  31  Am.  Rep. 
Berry,  116  Ga.  19,  42  S.  E.  371.  561;   St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones, 

91.  Atchison,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Bour-  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  29  S.  W.  695;  San 
dett,  74  Kan.  137,  85  Pac.  820.  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnett,   (Tex. 

92.  Merz.  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Civ.  App.)  27  S.  W.  675;  Vickshurg, 
Co.,  86  Minn.  33,  90  N.  W.  7.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ragsdale,  46  Miss.  458, 

93.  Palmer  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  1  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  407;  J.  P.  Williams 
Co.,  101  Cal.  187,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  &  Co.  v.  Penaaoola,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 
Oas.   235;    American   Express  Oo.   v.  Fla.  544.  48  So.  630;  Pruit  v.  Hanni> 


LIABILITY  FOR  DELAY. 


aoii 


occurring  about  as  a  shipment  begins  is  a  sufficient  excuse  for  a 
delay  in  transportation  which  is  caused  thereby.^*  But  the  carrier 
is  not  relieved  from  liability  for  a  delay  by  showing  that  it  was 
due  to  an  extraordinary  and  unprecedented  flood,  where  it  might 
have  avoided  the  effects  of  the  flood  by  the  exercise  of  reasonable 
diligence  and  care,^  as,  for  example,  where  it  might  have  carried 
a  shipment  of  live  stock  past  the  place  of  a  washout,  if  it  had 
been  shipped  promptly,  or  might  have  shipped  the  stock  over 
another  route.^  It  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier,  in  such  cases,  to 
notify  the  shipper  of  the  obstructions  to  traffic,  so  that  he  may, 
if  he  choose,  take  a  different  course,  and  the  carrier  is  liable  if 
loss  is  sustained  which  might  have  been  averted  by  shipping  the 
goods  over  another  line.®^  The  carrier's  knowledge  of  the  inter- 
ruption to  its  route  at  the  time  of  its  acceptance  of  the  goods  for 
transportation,  if  not  made  known  to  the  shipper,  may  preclude 


bal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Mo.  527;  Norria 
V.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Fla.  182, 

I  So.  475,  28  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  66, 

II  Am.  St.  Rep.  355 ;  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Manning,  23  Neb.  553;  Nash- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  King,  6  Heisk. 
(Tenn.)  269;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
David,  6  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  261,  19  Am. 
Rep.  594,  12  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  9;  Brid- 
tlon  V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  32  L. 
T.  94,  28  L.  J.  Exch.  51. 

Where  a  railway  company  received 
a  car  load  of  wheat  for  transporta- 
tion, and  owing  to  a  delay  in  car- 
riage and  delivery  at  the  point  of 
destination,  it  was  still  in  possession 
of  the  company,  when  a  large  part  of 
it  was  desitroyed  by  an  unusual  storm 
the  company  is  not  liable  for  the 
conversion  of  wheat  so  destroyed; 
but  if  the  company  recovered  a  por- 
tion of  the  wheat  and  retained  it  an 
unreasonable  time,  the  company  is 
liable  for  the  conversion  of  the  wheat 
eo  recovered  and  retained.    Gulf,  etc., 


R.  Co.  V.  Darby   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  67 
S.  W.  129. 

94.  Cunningham  v.  Wabash  R. 
Co.,  79  Mo.  App.  524,  2  Mo.  A.  Repr. 
465.  A  heavy  dew,  delaying  a  rail- 
way train,  is  not  the  act  of  God,  re- 
lieving the  railway  company  from 
liability  for  delay  in  shipment  of  cat- 
tle. Missouri,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Trus- 
kett,  104  Fed.  728,  44  C.  C.  C.  A.  179, 
aff'd  186  U.  S.  480,  22  Sup.  Ct.  943, 
46  L.  Ed.  1259;  (Ind.  T.),  53  S.  W. 
444. 

95.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bland 
(Tex.  Civ,  App.),  34  S.  W.  675. 

96.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCorquo- 
dale,  71  Tex.  41,  9  S.  W.  80,  35  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  653 ;  Guinn  v.  Wabash, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Mo.  App.  453;  Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Olive  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.)  23  S.  W.  526. 

97.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bri- 
chetto,  72  Miss.  891;  Schwab  v.  Union 
Line,  13  Mo.  App.  159. 


364  "^HE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

the  defense  that  delay  was  due  to  such  interruption  by  the  act  of 
God,  especially  when  rapid  and  safe  transportation  could  have 
been  made  over  other  lines.^  But  such  knowledge  must  be  shown 
to  have  been  of  a  deliuite  character.®*  Mere  failure  to  give  notice 
of  a  detention  by  a  flood  will  not  render  the  carrier  liable,  how- 
ever, where  delivery  was  made  as  soon  as  possible,  and  notice 
would  not  have  benefited  the  consignor  or  consignee  by  avoiding 
the  loss  or  injury  of  goods  which  followed.^  A  railroad  company 
is  not  liable  for  damages  arising  from  delay  in  the  shipment  of 
goods,  owing  to  the  loss  of  a  car  on  account  of  extraordinary 
weather  conditions;^  but  where  a  carrier  accepts  goods,  knowing 
that  a  congested  condition  of  traffic,  due  to  weather  conditions, 
will  delay  the  transportation,  but  fails  to  notify  the  shipper,  it 
cannot  set  up  such  weather  conditions  as  an  excuse  for  its  delay.' 

§  12.  Accumulation    or    shortage    of    cars    and    congestion    of 

freight. 
An  accumulation  of  cars  and  freight  at  the  place  of  delivery 
will  not  exonerate  a  carrier  from  liability  for  loss  by  delay  upon 
such  railroad,  where  the  carrier  had  power  to  remove  such  obstruc- 
tion.* The  temporary  obstruction  of  the  carrier's  warehouse  by 
an  accumulation  of  freight  does  not  excuse  its  delay  in  delivering 
goods,  where  it  was  within  its  power,  by  the  exercise  of  reasonable 
effort,  to  have  cleared  away  the  obstruction  and  to  have  delivered 
the  goods  long  before  it  did.^  But  common  carriers  are  not  liable 
for  a  delay  in  the  delivery  of  goods  occurring  in  consequence  of 

98.  Adams  Express  Oo.  v.  Jackson,  2.  Unionville   Produce   Co.   v.   Chi- 
92  Tenn.  326,  21  S.  W.  666.                          cago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  168  Mo.  App.  16S, 

99.  Palmer  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,       153  S.  W.  63. 

101  Cal.  187,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  3.  Unionville   Produce    Co.   v.   Chi- 

235.  cago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  supra. 

1.  Norris     v.     Savannah,     etc.,     R.  4.  Illinois   Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  McClel- 

Co.,  23  Fla.  182,  1  So.  475,  28  Am.  &  Ian,  54  111.  58,  5  Am.  Rep.  83;  Illinois 

Eng.  R.  Cas.  66,  11  Am.  St.  Rep.  355;  Cent.  R.  Oo.  v.  Cobb,  64  111.  128. 

Regan  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Oo.,  61  N.  5.  D.  Klass  Commission  Co.  v.  Wa- 

H.  579.  bash  R.  Co.,  80  Mo,  App.  164,  2  Mo. 

A.  Repr.  545. 


LIABILrrY  FOR  DELAY.  3G5 

an  unusual  quantity  of  freight  being  offered  for  transportation, 
and  without  fault  on  their  part,  unless  they  have  expressly  con- 
tracted to  deliver  the  same  within  a  limited  time.  They  must  not, 
however,  be  at  fault  in  providing  sufficient  accommodations  for  the 
general  traffic  of  their  roads  under  ordinary  circumstances.^  When 
the  facilities  are  inadequate  to  meet  the  unusual  demands  for 
transportation,  the  shipper  should  be  informed  at  the  time  the 
goods  are  offered  for  transportation,  or  as  soon  thereafter  as  the 
fact  becomes  kno\vn  to  the  carrier,  and  if  the  carrier  receives  goods 
for  shipment,  knowing  its  lack  of  adequate  facilities  to  meet  the 
unusual  press  of  business,  without  informing  the  shipper  of  the 
fact,  or  is  at  fault  in  its  duty  to  have  and  provide  proper  and  suf- 
ficient facilities  for  transportation,  it  is  liable  for  all  damages 
sustained  by  delay  in  delivery  of  the  goods.^  Delay  in  transport- 
ing freight  cannot  be  excused  by  the  fact  that  crews  were  taken 
from  freight  trains  to  handle  an  extraordinary  amount  of  passen- 
ger traffic  of  which  the  carrier  had  previous  warning  and  could 
have  provided  for.^  A  carrier  failing  to  notify  a  shipper  of  prob- 
able delay  in  shipment  by  reason  of  its  having  unexpectedly  re- 
ceived more  business  than  it  can  accommodate  is  bound  to  trans- 
port the  goods  within  a  reasonable  time  notwithstanding  emerg- 
ency.'    A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  delay  caused  by  a  sudden  in- 

6.  Wibert    v.    New    York,    etc.,    R.  7.  Bussey     v.     Memphis,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,  12  N.  Y.  245,  aflfg.  19  Barb,   (N.  Co.,  4  McCrary   (U.  S.)   405,  13  Fed. 

Y.)     36,    29    Barb.     (N,    Y.)     635,    2  330;     McLaren    v.    Detroit,    etc.,    R, 

Sweeny   (N.  Y.),  683.     This  rule  was  Co.,  23  Wis.   138;   Great  Western  R. 

held  to  be  true,  notwithstanding  the  Co.  v.  Burns,  60  111.  284,  12  Am.  Ry. 

general    railroad   act   of    1850,   chap.  Rep.     309.       See    also   Facilities    for 

140,   §    36,  requiring  such  companies  transportation,  §  8,  chap.  3. 

to  furnish  sufficient  facilities  for  the  8.  Daoust  &  Welch  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

transportation  of  all  freight  oflFered.  Ry.   Co.,   149   Iowa,   650,   128   N.   W. 

See  also  Blackstock  v.  New  York,  etc.,  1106. 

R.    Co.,    20   N.   Y.   48,    75   Am.    Dec.  9.  Joynes  v.   Pennsylvania   R.   Co., 

372;  Ballentine  v.  North  Missouri  R.  235   Pa.   232,   83   Atl.   1016. 

Co.,   40  Mo.   491,   93   Am.   Dec.   315;  In  determining  what  is  a  reasonable 

and   other   casies   cited   under    Facili-  time  for  transportation  and  delivery 

ties  for  transportation,  §  8,  chap.  3.  of  freight  under  ordinary  conditions. 


366  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

crease  of  business  that  could  not  be  anticipated  by  ordinary  prud- 
ence and  foresight;^**  but  a  shipment  having  been  accepted  for 
transportation  without  notice  to  the  shipper  that  there  was  a 
shortage  of  cars  and  an  unprecedented  amount  of  business,  the 
carrier  should  be  held  liable  for  damages  for  unreasonable  delay." 
Where  a  carrier's  failure  to  transport  cotton  with  reasonable  dis- 
patch was  caused  by  an  excessive  crop,  it  was  not  liable  for  the 
delay,  where  it  took  extraordinary  steps  to  handle  the  cotton,  and 
the  shipper  knew  at  the  time  it  offered  the  cotton  for  shipment 
that,  on  account  of  the  heavy  traffic  and  large  demand  for  cars, 
it  could  not  be  transported  with  the  usual  rapidity.^^  A  carrier 
cannot  excuse  its  failure  to  move  promptly  cotton  delivered  to  it 
for  transportation  by  proving  that  80  per  cent  or  more  of  its 
equipment  was  off  its  line,  engaged  in  the  carriage  of  shipments 
offered  along  the  line  for  other  points  in  other  states,  for  which 
reason  it  did  not  have  sufficient  equipment  to  promptly  move  the 
cotton,  though  by  having  in  its  possession  75  per  cent  of  its  equip- 
ment it  could  have  moved  all  freight  offered.^^  Where,  at  the  time 
defendant  accepted  certain  oats  for  shipment,  it  had  knowledge 
that  traffic  was  demoralized  in  its  yards  at  the  point  of  destination, 
but  neglected  to  notify  the  shipper  of  such  fact,  defendant  was 
bound  to  make  delivery  in  the  ordinary  course  of  business,  and 
was  liable  for  damages  sustained  by  delay."     Where  the  agent  of 

under  a  contract  fixing  no  time,  ex-  v.    Early-Clement    Grain    Co.,     (Tex. 

traordinary  conditions,  not  known  to  dv.  App.)    124  S.  W.  1015. 

the  shipper  at  the  time  of  shipment,  12.  Yazoo  &  M.  V.  R.  Co.  v.  Blum, 

cannot  enlarge  the  time.    Texas  &  P.  —  Miss.  — ,  42  So.  283;  Yazoo  &  M. 

Ry.  Co.  V.  Langbein,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  V.  R.  Co.  v.  McKay,  91  Miss.  138,  44 

150  S.  W.  1188.  So.  780. 

10.  Baker  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  13.  St.  Louis  S.  W.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Co.,  —  Mo,  App.  — ,  129  S.  W.  436,  Phoenix  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  88  Ark.  594, 
but  it  may  not  escape  a  liability  for  115  S.  W.  393.  See  also  Yazoo  &  M. 
delay  in  furnishing  cars  on  the  ground  V.  R.  Co.  v.  Blum  Co.,  88  Miss.  180, 
of  a  car  famine  resulting  from  an  ex-  40  So.  748,  10  L.  R.  A,  (N.  S.)  432. 
iention  of  the  carrier's  mileage  and  14.  Russell  Grain  Co.  v.  Waba.sh 
jt  natural  increase  in  business.  R.  <3o.,  114  Mo.  App.  488,  89  S.  W. 

11.  Missouri,  etc.,  Ry.  Oo.  of  Texas  908. 


LIABILITY  FOR  DELAY.  367 

a  railroad  company,  knowing  of  a  congestion  of  freight  in  th& 
company's  yards,  preventing  delivery  of  a  consignment  of  apples, 
promises  the  consignee  to  make  the  delivery,  thereby  preventing 
the  consignee  from  himself  removing  them,  the  company  is  liable 
for  the  failure  to  promptly  deliver,  the  congestion  of  freight  being 
no  defense.^* 

§  13.  Low  water  or  freezing  of  waterway. 

Where  goods  are  to  be  transported  by  water,  and,  owing  to  the 
state  of  the  river,  cannot  be  taken  by  water  to  their  destination, 
the  carrier  is  not  bound  to  forward  them  overland,  and,  if  there 
has  been  no  want  of  diligence,  is  not  answerable  for  delay,  if  the 
goods  finally  arrive  safely.^®  Where  transportation  by  water  was 
impeded  in  midvoyage  by  low  water  and  the  carrier  was  obliged 
to  land  and  store  the  goods  at  an  intermediate  port,  the  carrier 
was  not  liable  for  delay,  and,  if  the  owner  accepts  them  at  the  latter 
place  and  pays  all  charges  for  freight  and  storage,  the  carrier  is 
discharged  from  all  subsequent  liability  on  account  of  its  contract" 

15.  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Deakins,  the  waters  of  the  Ohio  fell  so  that 
107  Tenn.  522,  64  S.  W.  477.  the   boat   had   to   wait    at   the   falls, 

Where  freight  is  accepted  by  a  car-  and  a  custom  was  clearly  shown  of  so 
rier  without  notice  to  the  shipper  waiting  for  a  month  or  more,  the 
that  its  delivery  will  be  delayed,  and  words  mentioned  imposed  no  obliga- 
delay  occasioned  by  unusual  rush  of  lion  to  reship,  and  waiting  was  jus- 
business  or  large  accumulation  of  tifiable.  Broadwell  v.  Butler  &  Co.^ 
freight  is  no  defense  to  an  action  for  6  McLean  (U.  S.),  296. 
delaying  the  shipment.  Texas  &  N.  But  under  a  written  contract,  bj 
O.  Ry.  Co.  V.  E.  R.  &  D.  C.  Kolp,  Jr.,  which  the  owner  of  a  steamboat 
(Tex,  Civ.  App.)   88  S.  W.  417.  bound    themselves,    as    common    car- 

16.  Silver  v.  Hale,  2  Mo.  App.  557.  riers,  to  deliver  certain  goods  at  a 
Compare  Sumner  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  specified  point,  the  loss  of  the  goods 
R.  Co.,  78  N.  C.  289.  by   fire,   after   having   been   deposited 

17.  Bennett  v.  Byram,  38  Miss.  20,  in  a  warehouse  at  the  highest  poini 
75  Am.  Dec.  90.  See  also  Vicksburg,  to  which,  on  account  of  the  low  stage 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ragsdale,  46  Miss.  477.  of  the  water,  the  boat  cooild   ascend 

The    words    "  privilege    of    reship-  the  ri\'er,  does  not  excuse  the  defend- 

ping "  in  a  bill  of  lading,  are  intended  ant's    failure    to    deliver    the    good» 

for  the   carrier's   bnefit,    but   do   not  at    the    specified    point    and    the    ac- 

limit    his    responsibility,    and    where  ceptance    of    a    portion    by    the   con- 


St>6 


THE  LAW  OF  CAKRIERS. 


The  freezing  of  a  watcr-waj,  such  as  a  canal,  is  such  an  act  of 
intervention  of  the  vis  major  as  will  excuse  performance  until  the 
obstruction  is  removed,  but  a  contract  to  carry  goods,  made  by  a 
canal  boatman  shortly  before  the  period  when  the  canal  might  bo 
expected  to  freeze,  requires  him  to  make  a  special  effort  to  per- 
form the  contract,  and  where,  by  failure  to  exercise  due  diligence, 
the  carrier  is  able  to  transport  the  goods  only  part  of  the  way,  it 
ia  liable  for  the  damages  occasioned  by  the  delay.^ 

§  14.  Strikes  by  employes. 

A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  delay  in  the  shipment  and  delivery 
of  freight  which  is  caused  by  a  strike  of  its  employes  and  work- 
men, accompanied  by  violence  and  intimidation  by  the  strikers, 
with  a  view  of  preventting  the  carrier  from  employing  new  agents 
or  preventing  those  who  did  not  strike  and  who  were  ready  and 
willino-  to  work  from  working,  of  such  a  character  as  cannot  be 


signee,  at  a  place  different  from  that 
specified  in  the  contract,  though  ad- 
missible in  mitigation  of  damages, 
does  not  discharge  the  carrier  from 
liability  for  the  residue.  Cox.  v.  Pe- 
terson, 30  Ala,  608,  68  Am.  Dec.  145. 

Evidence  by  a  carrier  that  goods 
lost  by  burning  in  a  warehouse  oould 
not  be  moved  before  the  fire  on  ac- 
count of  the  vp-ater  being  so  low  is 
competent  to  rebut  the  presumption 
of  negligence  arising  from  delay  in 
reshipping  the  goods,  where  the  bill 
of  lading  exempted  the  carrier  from 
liability  except  ordinary  neglect  in 
case  of  fire.  Hornthall  v.  Roanoke, 
etc..  Steamboat  Co.,  107  N.  C.  76,  11 
e.  E.  1049. 

18.  Spann  v.  Erie  Boatman's 
Transp.  Co.,  11  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.) 
680,  33  N.  Y.  Supp.  566,  and  the 
shipper's  measure  of  damage  is  the 
difference  between  the   contract  pr'c^ 


of  transportation  and  the  increased 
costs  necessary  to  secure  the  delivery 
of  the  property  at  its  destination, 
and  such  further  increased  expense  as 
waf:-  necessarily  incurred  as  a  conse- 
quence of  the  delay.  Ogden  v.  Mar- 
shall, 8  N.  Y.  340;  Briggs  v.  New- 
York.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
515;  Farwell  v.  Davis,  66  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  73.  See  also  Parsons  v.  Hardy, 
14  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  215,  28  Am.  Dec. 
521. 

Where  a  carrier  was  delayed  in  the 
transportation  of  goods  by  the  freez- 
ing of  a  canal  owing  to  the  lateness 
of  the  season  and  without  any  fault 
on  the  part  of  the  carrier,  and  the 
goods  were  stored  and  the  shipper 
notified,  the  carrier  was  entitled  to 
recover  the  expense  of  unloading  and 
storing  the  goods.  Beckwith  v.  Fris- 
hie,  32  Vt.   559. 


LIABILITY  FOR  DELAY. 


369 


overcome  by  the  company  or  controlled  b^  the  civil  authorities 
when  called  upon,  when  such  acts  are  done  by  persons  after  they 
have  abandoned  the  service  of  the  company.^'  But  the  mere  re- 
fusal of  the  carrier's  employes  to  work,  thus  depriving  the  carrier, 
for  the  time,  of  the  ability  to  forward  the  property,  where  there 
is  no  unlawful  violence  or  active  interference  with  the  carrier's 
trains,  is  no  defence  to  an  action  for  delay  in  transportation,  as 
the  excuse  arises  wholly  out  of  the  misconduct  of  the  carrier's 
servants  who  wrongfully  refused  to  perform  their  duties.^"  When 
the  places  of  the  recusant  employes  have  been  promptly  filled  with 


19.  Geismer  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  463,  55  Am.  Rep. 
837,  7  N.  E.  828;  Little  v.  Fargo,  43 
Hun  (N.  Y.),  233;  Hall  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.,  1  Fed.  226,  3  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  274,  14  Phila.  (Pa.) 
414 ;  Haas  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Oo.^ 
81  Ga.  792.  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas! 
572,  7  R.  E.  629;  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Cb.  V.  Queen  City  Coal  Co.  (Ky.), 
35  S.  W.  626;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Bell,  13  Ky.  Law  Rep.  393;  Bart- 
lett  V.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94 
Ind.  281,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  549; 
Hamilton  v.  Western  North  Carolina 
R.  Co.,  96  N.  C.  398;  Intornational, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Tisdale,  74  Tex.  8,  11 
S.  W.  900,  4  L.  R.  A.  545;  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  I.evi,  76  Tex.  337,  42  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  439,  13  S.  W.  191,  18 
Am.  St.  Rep.  45,  8  L.  R.  A.  323; 
Galveston,  etc,  R.  Co  v.  Karrer,  Tex. 
Civ.  App.,  109  S.  W.  440;  Sterling 
V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  451,  86  S.  W.  655;  South- 
ern Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Johnson  (Tex. 
App.),  15  S.  W.  121,  45  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  338;  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
<?atewood,  79  Tex.  89;  Indianapolis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  T.  Juntgen,  10  lU.  Apip. 
24 


295;  White  v,  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Oo., 
19  Mo.  App.  400;  Budgett  v.  Binning- 
ton,  1  Q.  B.  35.  Compare  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Levi,  4  Tex.  App.  Civ. 
Cas.  §  8. 

20.  Blackstock  v.  Nev?^  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y.  48,  75  Am.  Dec.  372; 
People  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  28  Hun  (N.  Y.),  543,  9  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  1 ;  Weed  v.  Panama  R. 
Co.,  17  N.  Y.  362,  72  Am.  Dec.  474; 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woods,  —  Tex. 
Civ.  App  — ,  117  S.  W.  196;  Interna- 
tional, etc.,  R.  Co.,  V.  Server,  3  Tex. 
App.  Civ.  Oas.  §  440;  Pittsburgh, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  V.  Hazen,  84  111.  36,  25 
Am.  Rep.  422;  Sinsabaugh  v.  Cleve- 
land, etc.,  R.  Co.,  149  111.  App.  430; 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Georgia  Fruit, 
etc.,  Exch.,  91  Ga.  389,  55  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  606;  Read  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Mo.  199;  Sherman  v. 
PennFfylvania  R.  Co.,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,769,  8  Wkly.  Notes  Cas.  (Pa.) 
269. 

The  shipper  mnst  be  notified,  in 
case  of  a  delay  due  to  a  strike.  Ala- 
bama, etc.,  R.  Co.,  V.  Brichetto,  73 
Miss.  891. 


;j70  '-^"^i^  ^^\^'  ^^^  CARRIERS. 

other  competent  men,  and  the  strikers  then  by  lawless  and  irre- 
sistible violence  prevent  the  new  employes  from  doing  duty,  the 
carrier  is  not  responsible  for  any  delay  caused  solely  by  such  law- 
less violence.^  Where  an  uncontrollable  mob  prevents  a  railroad 
company  from  fulfilling  its  contract  to  deliver  freight,  the  com- 
pany is  not  liable,  although  had  the  company  not  reduced  wages, 
or  insisted  upon  maintaining  the  reduction,  there  would  have  been 
no  mob.^^ 

§  15.  Delay  caused  by  levy  on  goods. 

A  statute  providing  that,  when  a  carrier  summoned  as  garnishee 
in  an  action  has  goods  in  its  possession  shipped  by  or  consigned 
to  defendant,  it  shall  not  be  liable  for  its  failure  to  transport  the 
goods  until  it  is  discharged,  exonerates  the  carrier  garnished  in 
an  action  against  the  shipper  or  consignee  from  liability  for  delay 
caused  by  the  garnishment,  but  a  carrier  merely  alleging  that  a 
third  person  was  in  possession  of  the  goods  at  the  time  he  was 
garnisheed  and  omitting  to  allege  any  fact  showing  that  the  pos- 
session of  the  third  person  was  the  possession  of  the  carrier  is  not 
within  the  statute.^  Where,  after  a  judgment  debtor  had  de- 
livered goods  to  a  carrier  for  shipment,  notice  of  garnishment  was 
served  on  the  carrier  under  which  the  goods  were  detained  about 
sixteen  days,  and  the  goods  were  exempt,  but  of  this  neither  the 
judgment  creditor,  the  officer,  nor  the  carrier  had  notice,  but  as 
soon  as  the  notice  was  received,  the  levy  was  released,  and  the 
goods  forwarded  in  a  reasonable  time,  the  debtor  could  not  recover 
of  the  carrier  for  unreasonable  detention  of  his  goods.^*    The  ser- 

21.  Geismer  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  22.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Ck).  v.  Ben- 

Oo.,  102  N.  Y.  563,  55  Am.  Rep.  837;  nett,  89  Ind.  454. 

Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hollowell,  23.  A.  C.  L.  Haase  &  Sons  Fish  Co. 

65   Ind.   188,   32  Am.  Rep.   63;   Lake  v.  Merchants'   Despatch   Transip.   Co., 

Shore,  etc.,  R   Co.  v.  Bennett,  89  Ind.  143  Mo.  App.  42,  122  S.  W.  362. 

457;   Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Ha-  24.  Hynds  v.  Wynn,  71  Iowa,  593, 

zen,  84  111.  36,  25  Am.  Rep.  422;  In-  33  N.  W.  73. 
temational,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Server,   3 
Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  441. 


LlAlilLlTi'   k\)R  DELAY.  371 

rice  of  a  garnishee  summons  upon  the  carrier,  after  the  goods 
have  been  received,  placed  in  a  car  for  transportation,  and  a  bill 
of  lading  issued  by  the  carrier  to  the  shipper,  although  the  car  has 
not  been  as  yet  put  in  the  train,  does  not  excuse  the  carrier  from 
its  duties  as  such,  or  authorize  an  unreasonable  delay  in  forward- 
ing the  property  to  its  destination  without  the  State.^ 

§  16.  Limitation  of  liability  for  delay. 

The  general  rule  is  that  common  carriers  may  limit  their  com- 
mon law  liability  only  by  stipulation  or  contract,^®  and  that  such 
contract  or  stipulation  can  in  no  event  exempt  the  carrier  from 
liability  for  loss  occasioned  by  its  own  negligence.^  The  general 
rules  governing  contracts  limiting  the  liability  of  carriers  gener- 
ally, as  discussed  herein  later  on,  apply  to  the  limitation  of  liability 
for  delay.^ 

§  17.  Carrier's  duty  during  delay. 

In  an  emergency  where  there  is  a  delay  in  the  delivery  of  goods, 
the  only  duty  resting  upon  the  carrier,  not  otherwise  in  fault,  is 
to  use  reasonable  efforts  and  due  diligence  to  overcome  the  obstacles 
interposed,  to  protect  the  goods  from  injury,  and  to  forward  the 
goods  to  their  destination. 


29 


§  18.  Delay  concurring  with  inevitable  accident. 

The  rule  in  New  York  and  some  other  states  is  that  a  common 

25.  Baldwin  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Branch  v.  Wilmington,  ^■tc.,  R.  Co., 
Co.,  81  Minn.  247,  83  N.  W.  986,  51  88  N.  C.  573,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
L.  R.  A.  640,  83  Am.  St.  Rep.  370.  621;  White  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co., 

26.  Mynard  v.  Syracuse,  etc.  R.  2  C.  B.  N.  S.  7,  9  E.  C.  L.  7,  26  L.  J. 
Co.,  71  N.  Y.  180;   Magnin  v.  Dins-  C.  P.  158. 

more,   56  N.  Y.  168;    Cragin  v.  New  28.  See     Limitation     of     Liability, 

York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  51  N.  Y.  61.     See  chap.   10. 

also  Limitation  of  Liability,  chap.  10.  29.  Geismer  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 

27.  Nicholas  v.  New  York  Cent..  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  563.  55  Am.  Rep.  837; 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  N.  Y.  370,  9  Am.  &  Regan  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  61  N. 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  103;  T^eonard  v.  Chi-  H.  579.  See  also  Carrier's  liability 
cago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Mo.  App.  293;  as  warehouseman,  chap.  9. 


372 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


carrier,  in  order  to  claim  exemption  from  liability  for  damage 
done  to  goods  in  its  hands  in  the  course  of  transportation,  though 
injured  by  what  is  deemed  the  act  of  God,  must  be  without  fault 
itself;  its  act  or  neglect  must  not  concur  and  contribute  to  the 
injury.  If  it  departs  from  the  line  of  duty  and  violates  its  con- 
tract, and  while  thus  in  fault,  and  in  consequence  of  the  fault,  the 
goods  are  injured  by  the  act  of  God,  which  would  not  have  other- 
wise caused  the  injury,  it  is  not  protected.  Where  a  common 
carrier  therefore  receives  goods  for  transportation,  but  unreason- 
ably delays  shipping  them  and  meanwhile  they  are  injured  by  an 
inevitable  accident,  the  carrier  is  liable.^"  The  United  States 
courts,  the  courts  of  Massachusetts,  Pennsylvania  and  some  other 
states,  maintain  the  contrary  view  that  the  carrier  is  not  liable, 
since  the  negligent  delay  is  the  remote  and  not  the  proximate  cause 
of  the  injury,  and  the  carrier  is  responsible  only  for  the  proximate 
and  not  for  the  remote  consequences  of  its  actions.^^     But  the 


30.  Mynard  v.  Syracuse,  eix!.,  R. 
Co.,  71  N.  Y.  80;  Read  v.  Spaulding, 
80  N,  Y.  630,  86  Am.  Dec.  426; 
Michaels  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 
30  N.  Y.  564,  86  Am.  Dec.  415;  Heyl 
V.  Inman  Steamship  Co.,  14  Hun  (N. 
Y.),  564;  Bostwick  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  712;  Dunson  v.  New 
York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  3  Lans.  (N.  Y.) 
265;  Merritt  v.  Earle,  29  N.  Y. 
115;  Wing  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
1  Hilt.  (N.  Y.)  235;  Condiot  v. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  54  N.  Y.  500; 
Rawson  v.  Holland,  59  N.  Y.  611,  18 
Am.  Rep.  394;  Dunham  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Me.  164,  30  Am.  Rep. 
314;  New  Brunswick,  etc.,  T.  Co.  v. 
Tiers,  24  N.  J.  L.  697,  64  Am.  Dpc. 
394;  Forward  v.  Pittard,  1  T.  R.  27; 
Crosby  v.  Fitch,  12  Conn.  410,  31  Am. 
Dec.  745;  Pruitt  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  62  Mo.  527;  Wolf  v.  American 
Express  Co.,  43  Mo.  421,  97  Am.  Dec. 


406;  Armentrout  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  1  Mo.  App.  158 ;  Davis  v.  Wa- 
bash, etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Mo.  340,  26  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cac.  315;  Richmond,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Benson,  86  Ga.  203,  22 
Am.  St.  Rep.  446.  See  also  Clark  v. 
Pacific  K.  Co.,  39  Mo.  184,  90  Am. 
Dec.  458;  Gilkerson  v.  Pacific  R.  IX)., 
39  Mo.  354. 

31.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reeves 
10  Wall.  (U.  S.)  176;  Wertheimer 
V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  17  Blatclif. 
(U.  S.)  421;  Denny  v.  New  York 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  13  Gray  (Mass.), 
481,  74  Am.  Dec.  645;  Morrison  v. 
Davis,  20  Pa.  St.  171,  57  Am.  Dec. 
695;  Hoadloy  v.  Northern  Transr>. 
Co.,  115  Mass.  304,  15  Am.  Rep.  106; 
Clark  v.  Needles,  25  Pa.  St.  338; 
Haverly  v.  State  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
135  Pa.  St.  50,  43  Am.  &  Eng.  R, 
Cas.  31,  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  848;  Mc- 
f^arthv  V.  Toui'ville.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102 


LIABILITY  FOR  DELAY. 


aT3 


latter  rule  is  qualified,  when  it  appears  that  the  carrier  unneces- 
sarily exposed  the  property  to  such  accident  by  any  culpable  act 
or  omission  of  its  own,  or  neglected  to  make  provision  for  those 
dangers  which  ordinary  skill  and  foresight  is  bound  to  anticipate, 
and  the  carrier  in  such  cases  is  held  liable.^^  A  common  carrier 
receiving  property  for  transportation  with  knowledge  of  the  exist- 
ence of  an  obstruction  on  its  road,  and  without  informing  the 
shipper,  cannot  offer  the  obstruction  as  an  excuse  for  not  making 
a  prompt  delivery  thereof,  though  the  obstruction  is  the  act  of 
God;  and  it  is  bound  to  take  notice  of  the  signs  of  approaching 
danger  liable  to  create  obstructions,  if  any  are  known  to  it.^ 


Ala.  193,  48  Am.  St.  Rep.  29,  61  Am. 
&  tiig.  R.  Cas.  182;  O'Brien  v.  Mc- 
Glincliy,  68  Me.  557;  Michigan  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  Burrows,  33  Mich.  6;  Mc- 
Clary  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 
Neb.  44,  19  Am.  Rep.  631;  MacVeagh 
V.  Atehison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  N.  M.  205, 
18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  651;  Daniels 
V,  Ballentine,  23  Ohio  St.  532,  13  Am. 
Rop.  264;  Lamont  v.  Nashville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  9  Heisk.  (Tenn)  58;  White  v. 
Conly,  14  Lea  (Tenn.),  51,  52  Am. 
Rep.  154;  Davis  v.  Central  Vermont 


R.  Co.,  66  Vt.  290,  44  Am.  St.  Rep. 
852,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  201; 
Beckwith  v.  Frisbie,  32  Vt.  559. 

S2.  McGraw  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  18  W.  Va.  361,  41  Am.  Rep.  696, 
9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  188,  citing 
Williams  v.  Grant,  1  Conn.  487,  7 
Am.  Dec.  235;  Morrison  v.  Davis,  20 
Pa.  St.  171,  57  Am.  Dec.  695;  Hewett 
V.  Chicago,  eitc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Iowa,  611, 
18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  5&8. 

33.  Nelson  v.  Great  Northern  Ry. 
Co.,  28  Mont.  297,  73  Pac.  642. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Liability  as  Wakehouseman. 

Sbotion     1.  Carrier's  liability  as  warehouseman  before  transportation. 

2.  Carrier's  liability  as  warehouseman  during  transportation. 

3.  Carrier's  liability  as  warehouseman  as  to  goods  awaiting  deliv- 

ery.— Massachusetts  rule. 

4.  The   New   Hampshire  rule. —  English   rule. —  Origin   of   different 

rules. 

5.  Change  in  nature  of  liability  of  carrier  in  general. 

6.  Conflict  of  laws. 

7.  What  is  reasonable  time  for  removal  of  goods  generally. 

8.  Time  extended  by  failure  or  refusal  to  deliver. 

9.  Notice  to  consignee  held  not  essential. 

10.  Necessity  of  notice  maintained. 

11.  Sufficiency  of  notice. 

12.  Notice  to  consignor. 

13.  Liability  of  connecting  carriers. 

14.  The  burden  of  proof. 

15.  Effect  of  special  contract  or  usage  on  rule. 

16.  Duty  of  carrier  as  warehouseman  to  store  safely. 

17.  Carrier's  liability  as  warehouseman  for  negligence. 

18.  Statute  making  railroad  company  liable  for  losses  by  fire. 

19.  Proximate  cause  of  loss. 

§  1.  Carrier's  liability  as  warehouseman  before  transportation. 

Whether  the  carrier's  relation  is  that  of  a  common  carrier  or 
a  warehouseman  must  often  be  determined  in  order  to  determine 
the  extent  of  its  liability,  its  liability  in  the  first  relation  being 
that  of  an  insurer,  and  in  the  second  relation  it  being  liable  for 
ordinary  negligence  only  and  held  only  to  ordinary  diligence,  as 
we  have  already  seen.^  The  principle  is  well  settled  that  a  carrier 
is  responsible,  as  such,  only  when  goods  are  delivered  to  and  ac- 
cepted by  it  for  immediate  transportation  in  the  usual  course  of 
business.     If  delivered  awaiting  further  orders  from  the  shipper 

1.  5^  §§  2  and  34,  chap.  2. 

(371) 


LLlBiLlTY  AS   WAREHOUSEMAN. 


375 


before  shipment,  it  is,  while  thej  are  so  in  its  custody,  responsible 
only  as  warehouseman.^  The  test  whether  the  carrier's  relation 
is  that  of  a  common  carrier,  or  a  warehouseman,  is  generally  stated 
to  be  whether  the  goods  have  been  delivered  by  the  shipper  for  the 
purpose  of  immediate  transportation,  without  further  orders,  or 
not.^  If  the  goods  are  not  delivered  for  immediate  transportation 
in  the  usual  course  of  business,  but  the  shipment  is  delayed  at  the 
instance  of  the  owner,  or  the  goods  are  retained  at  the  shipper's 
request,  or  the  carrier  is  instructed  to  await  further  orders  before 
shipping,  or  the  goods  are  to  be  stored  for  a  specified  time,  or  until 
the  happening  of  a  certain  event,  the  carrier's  relation  and  liability 
is  that  of  a  warehouseman  only  until  after  the  shipper  has  given 
directions  for  immediate  shipment,  or  the  time  for  immediate 
shipment  has  arrived.*     If  something  remains  to  be  done  by  the 


2.  Moses  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 
N.  H.  (4  Fost.)  71,  55  Am.  Dec.  222; 
O'Neill  y.  N-ew  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  60  N.  Y.  138,  10  Am.  Ry.  Rep. 
121;  Rogers  v.  Wheeler,  52  N.  Y.  262. 
See  also  §  34,  chap.  2,  and  §  1,  ohap. 
4. 

Goods  stopped  in  transitu  and 
held  subject  to  shipper's  order  the 
carrier  is  liable  for  as  warehouse- 
man. McVeagli  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R. 
Cio.,  3  N.  M.  (Gild.)  205,  5  Pac.  457. 
Liable  as  carrier  where  storage  is 
mere  accessory  to  carriage. — Where  a 
carrier  receives  freight  for  trans- 
portation, though  it  has  no  trains 
scheduled  to  carry  it  until  the  fol- 
lowing day,  and  the  shipper  knows 
the  facts  and  understands  that  the 
goods  will  be  stored  in  the  depot 
until  the  following  day,  the  carrier, 
while  holding  the  goods  at  the  depot, 
is  liable  as  a  carrier,  and  not  as  a 
warehouseman.  Southern  Ry.  Co.  in 
Kentucky  v.  Smith,  31  Ky.  Law  Rep. 
243,  102  S.  W.  232.  See  also  §  1, 
chap.  4. 


3.  4rA;.— Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hunter,  42  Ark.  200,  18  Am,  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  527. 

Mass. — Judson  v.  Western  R. 
Corp.,  86  Mass.  (4  Allen)  520,  81 
Am.  Dec.  718;  Fitchburg,  ettc.,  R. 
Co,  V.  Hanna,  72  Mass.  (6  Gray)  539, 
66  Am.  Dec.  427. 

Mo. — Goodbar    v.    Wabash    R.    Co., 

53  Mo.  App.  434,  passenger's  baggage. 

N.  y,— Coyle  v.  Western  R.  Corp., 

47    Barb.     (N.    Y.)     152;     Wade    v. 

Wheeler,  2  Lans.    (N.  Y.)    201. 

Ohio. — Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co,  r. 
Barrett,  36  Ohio  St.  448,  3  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  258. 

Pa. — Clarke  v.  Needles,  25  Pa.  St. 
(1   Casey)    338. 

Wis. — White  v,  Goodrich  Transp. 
Co.,  46  Wis.  493,  1  N,  W.  75,  21  Am. 
Ry.  Rep.  398. 

4.  Ark. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ▼. 
Citizens  Bank  of  Little  Rock,  87,  Ark. 
26,  112  S.  W.  154;  Little  Rock,  etc, 
R.  Oo.  V,  Hunter,  supra. 


7G 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


shipper  after  tlie  goods  have  been  delivered  for  shipment  before 
they  are  ready  for  transportation,  as  where  they  are  delivered  to 
the  carrier  without  instructions  as  to  their  destination,  or  to  await 
orders,  or  until  charges  for  transportation  are  paid,  the  relation 
and  liability  of  the  carrier  is  that  of  warehouseman  merely.^    But 


III. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mont- 
gomery, 39  111.  336. 

Mass. — Nichols  v.  Smith,  115  Mass. 
332;  Dickinson  v.  Winchester,  58 
Mass.  (4  Oush.)  114,  50  Am.  Dec. 
760. 

Mich. — ^Michigan  Southern,  etc.,  R. 
Oo.  V.   Shurtz,   7  Mich.   515;    Detroit 

6  M.  R.  Co.  V.  Adams,  15  Mich.  458. 
Miss. — Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.     v. 

Troustine,    64    Miss.    834,    2    So.    255, 
passenger's  baggage. 

N.  Y. — O'Neill  v.  New  York  Cent. 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  supra;  Piatt  v.  Hibbard, 

7  Cow.    (N.    Y.)    499. 

A'.  C. — Ford  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  53  N.  C.  (8  Jones,  L.)  235,  78 
Am.  Doc.  277;  Easnight  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  N.  C.  592,  16  S.  E. 
323. 

Ohio. — Fisher  v.  Lake  Shore  &  M. 
S.  R.  Co.,  17  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  491,  9 
O.  C.  D.  413;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Oo. 
V.  Rarrett,  supra. 

Wis. — Fchmidt  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  90  Wis.  504,  63  N.  W.  1057. 

TJ.  -S.— Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v. 
United  States,  39  Ct.  CI.  (U.  S.) 
405. 

Can. — Milloy  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
<>>.,  23  Ont.  Rep.  454,  55  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  579. 

6.  Ala.—^t.  T^uis  &  S.  F.  R.  Oo. 
V.  Cavender,  170  Ala.  601,  54  So.  54; 
Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Mt.  Vernon 
Co.,  84  Ala.  173,  4  So.  356. 

Dak. — MulliEran    v.    Northern    V&o. 


R.  Co.,  4  Dak,  315,  29  N.  W.  359,  27 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  33. 

III. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hom- 
berger,  77  111.  457;  Illiois  Cent.  R. 
Co.  V.  Ashmead,  58  IlL  487;  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  McOlellan,  54  111.  58, 
5  Am.  Rep.  83.  In  these  cases  goods 
had  been  deposited  upon  the  platform 
or  in  the  warehouse  or  car  of  the 
carrier  for  future  shipment. 

Mass. — Watts  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Corp.,  106  Mass.  466;  Barron  v.  El- 
dridge,  100  Mass.  455,  1  Am.  Rep. 
126. 

Mich. — Stapleton  v.  Grand  Trunk 
Ry.  Co.,  133  Mich.  187,  10  Detroit 
Leg.  N.  133,  94  N.  W.  739. 

'N.  C. — Basnight  v.  Atlantic,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  supra. 

XL  S.— St.  Txiuis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Knight,  122  U.  S.  79,  7  Sup.  Ct.  1132, 
30  L.  Ed.   1077. 

A  charter  provision  as  to  "  goods  on 
deposit  awaiting  delivery "  that  the 
carrier  shall  not  be  responsible  for 
them,  does  not  include  goods  await- 
ing transportation,  but  only  those 
which  have  reached  their  destination. 
Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mineral 
Springs  Mfg.  Co.,  83  U.  S.  (16 
Wall.)    318,  21  L.  Ed.  297. 

Where  goods  are  delivered  to  a 
carrier  to  be  shipped,  but  not  to  be 
shipped  till  other  goods  are  deliv- 
ered the  next  morning,  to  be  shipped 
with  them,  its  liability  in  the  mean- 
time is  that  of  a  warehouseman  onlv. 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN.  377 

when  the  goods  are  detained  or  delayed  awaiting  shipment,  through 
the  carrier's  act  or  to  suit  its  purpose  or  convenience,  as,  for  ex- 
ample, where  the  carrier  has  not  then  the  means  of  transportation 
ready,  and  not  on  account  of  or  by  the  request  or  act  of  the  owner 
or  shipper,  the  relation  and  liability  is  that  of  a  common  carrier, 
and  not  of  a  warehouseman.^  Where  nothing  further  is  required 
to  prepare  the  goods  for  transportation,  and  no  further  orders  are 
necessary  to  enable  the  carrier  to  forward  them,  the  carrier's  lia- 
bility therefor,  as  soon  as  the  goods  are  delivered  at  the  freight 
house  or  depot  of  the  carrier,  is  that  of  a  common  carrier,  and  not 
of  a  warehouseman.^  A  delivery  of  goods  to  a  carrier  must  be  for 
immediate  transportation,  and,  if  they  are  delivered  to  be  stored 
for  a  specified  time,  or  imtil  the  happening  of  a  certain  event,  or 
until  further  orders,  the  carrier  is  a  mere  depositary,  or  bailee, 
and  its  liability  is  measured  by  the  principles  governing  that  re- 
lation, and  not  by  those  relating  to  carriers.*  A  common  carrier 
is  responsible  as  such  only  when  freight  is  delivered  to  and  ac- 
cepted by  it  for  immediate  transportation  in  the  usual  course  of 
business,  so  that  where  a  common  carrier  receives  goods,  and  some- 
thing remains  to  be  done  before  they  can  be  transported,  as  where 
they  are  delivered  to  the  carrier  without  instructions  as  to  their 
destination,  or  to  await  orders  or  until  charges  for  transportation 
are  paid,  the  responsibility  of  a  carrier  is  not  that  of  an  insurer, 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Riggs,    10  tody  of  the  defendant  as  carrier,  and 

Kan.  App.  578,  62  Pac.  712.  not   as   warehouseman.      Texas   &   P. 

6.  La. — Meyer    v.    Vicksburg,    etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morse,  1  White  &  W.  Civ. 

R.   Co.,  41  La.  Ann.   639,   6   So.  218.  Cas.  Ct.  App.   (Tex.)    §  411. 

Mo. — Gregory  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  46  7.  London    4    L.    Fire    Ins.    Co.    v. 

Mo.  App.  574.  Rome,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  68   Hun    (N.  Y.) 

]V.  ff.— Barter  v.  Wheeler,  49  N.  H.  598,  23  N.  Y.  Supp.  231,  aff'd  in  144 

9,  6  Am.  Rep.  434.  N.  Y.  200,  39  N.  E.  79 ;   Blossom  v. 

Tex. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  Trawick,  Griffin,   13  N.  Y.    (3  Kern.)    569,   67 

80  Tex.  270,  15  S.  W.  568,  where  cat-  Am.  Dec.  75;  Southern  Express  Co.  v. 

tie  have  been  placed  in  the  carrier's  McVeigh,   20   Grat.    (Va.)    264. 

pen  for  immediate  shipment,  and  part  8.  St.  Louis,   etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Citi- 

of  them  have  actually  been  placed  on  zens'  Bank  of  Little  Rock,  87  Ark. 

Ihe   car«.   the   cattle   are   in    the   cus-  26.  112  S.  W.  154. 


378 


THE  LAW  OF  CARKIERS. 


but  that  of  a  warehouseman,  who  is  held  only  to  ordinary  care  for 
their  safety.*  Where  a  railroad  company  allowed  shippers  of 
cotton  to  leave  cotton  on  its  station  platform  until  the  full  lot  to 
be  shipped  was  ready,  it  was  liable,  as  a  warehouseman,  under 
Texas  Eev.  St.  1895,  art.  323,  providing  that  a  railroad  company 
shall  be  liable  as  a  warehouseman  for  goods  stored  before  the  com- 
mencement of  transportation,  for  part  of  a  lot  of  cotton  intended 
for  shipment,  left  overnight  on  the  platform  by  the  shipper,  in 
accordance  with  custom,  awaiting  the  rest  of  the  shipment,  to  be 
brought  the  next  day.^"  Where  a  railroad  finds  goods  in  one  of 
its  cars  without  bill  of  lading  or  other  instructions,  and  removes 
them  to  a  storehouse,  requesting  and  awaiting  instructions  which 
are  not  furnished,  the  liabilities  are  those  of  a  warehouseman  and 
not  of  a  common  carrier."  Where  a  carter  conveys  goods  designed 
for  shipment  to  the  freight  depot  of  a  railroad  company,  and  de- 
posits them  on  the  platform  of  such  depot,  where  such  goods  are 
customarily  delivered  to  and  received  by  such  company  for  ship- 
ment, and  notifies  the  proper  shipping  agent  of  such  company  of 
the  presence  of  such  goods  on  the  platform,  and  that  they  are  to 
be  shipped  to  a  certain  station  on  such  railroad  after  one  of  the 
articles  has  been  properly  crated,  and  that  a  person  will  come  and 
crate  such  article  during  the  day,  and  the  agent  of  the  company 
expresses  his  assent  to  what  is  said  and  proposed,  this  amounts  to 
the  delivery  of  such  goods  to  the  railroad  company  and  its  accept- 
ance of  the  custody  thereof  as  warehouseman." 

§  2.  Carrier's  liability  as  warehouseman  during  transportation. 

While  goods  are  in  course  of  transportation  carriers  can  only 
be  relieved  of  their  liability  as  common  carriers  by  a  delivery 

9.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Oo.  v.  Cav-  A  railroad  is  not  liable  as  a  com- 
«nder,  170  Ala.  601,  54  So.  54.                 mon    carrier    for    property    deposited 

10.  Chica^,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  S.  in  its  warehouse  awaiting  the  orders 
Marshall  Bulley  &  Son,  (Tex.  Civ.  of  the  owner  for  transportation.  Id. 
App.)    140  S.  W.  480.  12.  Fisher  v.   Lake   Shore,   etc.,   R. 

11.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Oo,  v.  Co.,  17  Ohio  Oir.  Ct.  R.  491,  9  O.  0. 
United  States,  39  Ct.  CI.   (U.  S.)   405.  D.  413. 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN.  379 

of  the  goods  to  the  next  carrier  in  the  line  of  transportation,  or  by 
a  notice  to  it  that  the  goods  are  ready  for  delivery,  and  the  lapse 
of  a  reasonable  time  for  the  latter  to  take  them  away,  and  in  the 
event  of  its  neglect  so  to  do,  the  proper  storage  of  the  same,  or  by 
the  doing  of  some  act  indicating  a  renunciation  of  the  relation  of 
carrier.  In  the  event  of  a  delay  in  the  delivery  to  the  succeeding 
carrier,  for  which  the  initial  carrier  is  not  responsible,  it  is  its 
duty  to  notify  the  shipper  immediately  and  await  further  instruc- 
tions.^^ 

§  3.  Carrier's  liability  as  ^warehouseman  as  to  goods  awaiting  de- 
livery.— Massachusetts  rule. 
The  doctrine  of  the  courts  is  conflicting  as  to  when  the  relation 
and  liability  of  a  common  carrier  ceases  and  that  of  a  warehouse- 
man only  attaches,  where  goods  have  been  transported  to  their 
destination  and  are  in  the  vehicles  or  warehouses  of  the  carrier 
awaiting  delivery  to  the  consignee.  In  Massachusetts  and  some 
other  States  what  is  known  as  the  Massachusetts  rule  is  adopted, 
which  holds  that  the  carrier  by  railroad  can  only  be  required  to 
carry  the  goods  safely  to  the  station  and  place  them  on  the  plat- 
form or  in  a  warehouse ;  that  when  it  has  transported  them  safely 
to  the  place  of  delivery,  and,  the  consignee  not  being  present  to 
receive  them,  has  unloaded  them  and  put  them  in  a  safe  and  proper 
place  for  the  consignee  to  take  them  away,  if  the  goods  are  of  the 
kind  that  are  usually  unloaded  and  put  in  the  freight  house  or 
warehouse  by  the  carrier,  or  has  them  in  its  cars  ready  to  be  un- 

13.  Mills  V.  Michigan  Oent.  R.  Co.,  Connecting   carriers,    chap.  20;    Liac 

45  N.  Y.  622,  6  Am.  Rep.   152;   Mc-  bility  for  delay,  chap.  8. 

Donald  v.  Western  Transp.  Co.,  34  N.  Where  a  railroad  company  receives 

Y.   497;    Goold  v.   Chapin,   20  N.  Y.  loaded    cars    from    another    road    for 

259,  75  Am.  Dec.  398;   Illinois  Cent,  transportation,  it  is  liable  as  a  CQm- 

R.  Co.  V.  Mitchell,  68  111.  471,  18  Am.  men  carrier  in  case  they  are  destroyed 

Rep.   564;   Merchants'  Despatch,  etc.,  en   route  by   fire.     Missouri   Pac.   R. 

Co.  V.  Moore,  88  111.  135,  21  Am.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25   Fed. 

Rep.  293;  Mason  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  317,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  718. 
Co..   37   U.   C.   Q.   R.    163.      Rr>e   also 


3S0 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


loaded,  if  of  the  kind  that  the  consignee  usually  takes  from  the 
cars,  the  liability  of  the  carrier  as  an  insurer  is  ended,  and  it 
becomes  liable,  by  force  of  law,  as  a  depositary  or  custodian  of  the 
property,  or  warehouseman,  bound  to  reasonable  diligence  in  the 
custody  of  them  and  liable  only  for  a  want  of  ordinary  care.  The 
carrier  is  not  bound  to  give  notice  to  the  consignee  of  the  arrival 
of  the  goods,  but  it  is  the  duty  of  the  latter  to  call  for  and  take 
away  the  goods  without  notice  from  the  carrier.  The  carrier  is 
entitled  to  assume  the  liability  of  warehouseman,  upon  the  com- 
pletion of  the  transportation  and  the  safe  storage  of  the  goods, 
during  such  reasonable  time  as  they  remain  in  its  custody  awaiting 
the  call  of  the  consignee."    The  existence  of  a  custom  or  established 


14.  Mass. — ^Nealand  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Oo.,  161  Mass.  67,  36  N.  K  592,  the 
liability  of  a  carrier  with  respect  to 
the  personal  baggage  of  a  passenger 
after  it  has  reached  its  destination 
is  that  of  a  bailee  for  hire;  Blaisdell 
V.  Connectcut  River  R.  Co.,  145  Mass. 
132, 13  N.  E.  373 ;  Bassett  v.  Conneoti- 
eiit  River  R.  Co.,  145  Mass.  129,  1 
Am.  St.  Rep.  443,  13  N.  E.  370,  32 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  528 ;  Rice  v.  Hart, 
118  Mass.  201,  19  Am.  Rep.  433; 
Stowe  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113 
Mass.  521;  Lane  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  112  Mass.  455;  Barron  v.  El- 
dridge,  100  Mass.  455,  1  Am.  Rep. 
126;  Rice  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp., 
98  Mass.  212;  Norway  Plains  Co.  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  1  Gray  (Mass.) 
272,  61  Am.  Dec.  423;  Thomas  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  IR.  Corp.,  10  Mete. 
(Mass.)   477,  43  Am.  Dec.  444. 

Qa. — ^Kight  V.  Wrightsville  &  T. 
R.  Co.,  127  Ga.  204,  56  S.  E.  363, 
Tinder  Civ.  Code  1895,  §  2279; 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pound,  111 
Ga.  6,  36  S.  E.  312;  Almand  v. 
Georgia    R.    etc.,    Co.,    95    Ga.    775; 


Georgia  R.  etc.,  Co.  v.  Thompson,  86 
Ga.  327,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas,  422; 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  Camp,  53  Ga. 
596 ;  Southwestern  R.  Co.  v.  Felder,  46 
Ga.  433,  11  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  419;  Rome 
R.  Co.  V.  Sullivan,  14  Ga.  277;  Cen- 
tral R.  etc.,  Co.  V.  Anderson,  58  Ga. 
393,  16  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  85;  Georgia 
Code,  §  2070,  where  the  goods  arrive 
out  of  time,  notice  must  be  given  to 
the  consignee  and  a  reasonable  time 
allowed  Mm  to  call  for  and  remove 
them. 

III. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  Ken- 
dall, 72  111.  App.  105;  Gregg  v.  H- 
linoia  Cent.  R.  Co.,  147  111.  550,  37 
Am.  St.  Rep.  238;  Porter  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  111.  407,  71  Am.  Dec. 
286;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Friend, 
64  111.  303;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Scott,  42  111.  132 ;  Vincent  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  111.  33;  Rtinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  Alexander,  20  111.  23 ;  Davis 
V.  Michigan  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 
111.  412;  Richards  v.  Michigan  South- 
em,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  111.  404;  Mer- 
chants' Despatch  Transp.  Co.  v.  Hal- 
lock,  64  HI.  284;  Rothschild  v.  Michi- 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN. 


3S1 


usage  ma  J  be  shown  to  vary  the  general  rule  in  some  States/' 


gan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  71  111.  96;  Mer- 
chants' Despatch,  etc.,  R.  Oo.,  v. 
Moore,  88  111.  138,  30  Am.  Rep.  541; 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jenkins,  103 
111.  599;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  Bens- 
ley,  69  111.  630,  but  the  liability  of 
a  common  carrier  ceases  only  after 
the  unloading  of  the  goods. 

Ind. — Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Nash,  43  Ind.  433;  Cincinnati,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  McCool,  26  Ind.  140;  Ban- 
eemer  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Ind. 
434,  87  Am.  Dec.  367. 

Iowa. — Mohr  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  40  Iowa,  579;  Francis  v.  Du- 
buque, etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Iowa,  60,  95 
Am.  Dec.  769. 

The  duty  of  a  railroad  company,  as 
a  carrier  of  wheat  in  bulk,  does  not 
cease  until  the  cars  have  been  so 
placed  that  they  can  be  unloaded 
with  a  reasonable  degree  of  conven- 
ience. It  is  not  enough  to  put  the 
cars  where,  rpossibly,  they  could  be 
unloaded.  Independence  Mills  Co.  v. 
Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa,  535, 
2  Am.  St.  Rep.  258,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  456. 

When  a  carrier  ceases  to  be  a  car- 
rier and  becomes  a  warehouseman,  it 
cannot  be  protected  as  a  carrier  by 
the  constitutional  provisions  as  to 
r^Tiliations  of  commerce.  State  v. 
Creeden,  78  Iowa,  556,  43  N.  Y.  673, 
40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  31,  7  L.  R.  A. 
295. 

Mo. — Pindell  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Oo.,  41  Mo.  App.  84;  Hartman  v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Mj.  App. 
88;  Buddy  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 
Mo.  App.  206;  Kansas  City  Transfer 
Oo.  V.  Neiswanger,  18  Mo.   \.pp.  103 ; 


Bergner  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 
Mo.  App.  499;  Eaton  v.  St.  Louis 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Mo.  App.  386;  Gash- 
weiler  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Mo. 
112,  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  403,  53 
Am.  Rep.  558;  E.  0.  Stannard  MiU- 
ing  Co.  V.  White  Line  Cent.  Transit 
Co.,  122  Mo.  258,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  185;  Rankin  v.  Pacific  R.  Co., 
55  Mo.  167;  Cramer  v.  American  Mer- 
chants' U.  Exp.  Co.,  56  Mo.  524; 
Holtzclaw  v.  Duff,  27  Mo.  395. 

N.  C. — Turrentine  v.  Wilmington, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  N.  C.  375,  6  Am.  St. 
Rep.  602;  Neal  v.  Wilmington,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  8  Jones  L.  (N.  C.)  482;  Hil- 
liard  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 
Jones  L.   (N.  C.)    343. 

Pa. — Allam  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 
3  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  335,  183  Pa.  104,  41 
W.  N.  C.  205,  83  Atl.  709,  39  L.  R.  x^. 
535;  National  Line  Steamship  C-o.  v. 
Smart,  107  Pa.  St.  492;  Shenk  v. 
Philadelphia  Steam  Propeller  Co.,  60 
Pa.  St.  109,  100  Am.  Dec.  541;  Mc- 
Oarty  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 
Pa.  St.  247;  Union  Express  Cb.  v. 
Ohleman,  92  Pa.  St.  323,  but  express 
companies  are  bound  to  make  actual 
delivery.  And  the  carrier  is  bound 
to  give  notice  when  he  specially  con- 
tracts to  do  so.  Tanner  v.  Oil  Creek 
R.  Co.,  53  Pa.  St.  411.  See  also 
Eagle  V.  White,  6  Whart.  (Pa.)  505, 
37  Am.  Dec.  434. 

Tenn. — East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Kelly,  91  Tenn.  699,  55  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  621;  Butler  v.  East  Tennes- 
see, etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Lea  (Tenn.)  32,  9 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  249;  Southern 
Express  Oo.  ▼.  Kaufman,  12  Heisk. 
(Tenn.)     165:    Dean    v.    Vaccaro,    3 


3S2 


THE  LAW  OF  CAKRIEKS. 


After  goods  have  been  delivered  by  a  common  carrier  at  its  depot, 
the  o^vne^  or  consignee  has  a  reasonable  time  within  which  to  re- 
move them,  during  which  the  liability  of  the  carrier  as  an  insurer 
continues.  But,  after  the  expiration  of  such  reasonable  time, 
the  liability  of  the  carrier  becomes  modified,  and  it  is  only  bound 
to  exercise  ordinary  care  to  secure  the  safety  of  the  goods.  The 
liability  is  that  of  a  bailee  for  hire  and  grows  out  of  the  original 
contract.^^  Transportation  ceases  when  the  duty  of  the  carrier 
as  a  warehouseman  commences,  and  as  to  freight  transported  in 
car  load  lots  when  the  car  reaches  the  destination  and  is  placed  for 
unloading.^^  Where  a  common  carrier  places  freight  cars  on  its 
team  tracks  and  notifies  the  consignees  of  their  arrival,  and  then 
holds  them  for  inspection  and  sale  by  the  consignees  while  awaiting 
the  further  orders  of  the  consignor,  the  obligations  of  the  common 
carrier  have  been  reduced  to  and  become  those  of  a  warehouse- 
man.^ Where,  after  a  carrier  has  transported  goods  to  the  place 
of  delivery,  the  consignee  pays  the  freight,  receipts  for  them,  and 
contracts  for  reshipment  with  another  carrier,  and  leaves  them  in 
the  warehouse  of  the  first  carrier  to  await  reshipment,  the  liabili- 
ties of  the  first  carrier  are  changed  to  those  of  warehouseman." 
Where  a  carrier's  rule  for  the  delivery  of  goods  at  a  station  re- 
Head  (Tenn.)  488,  75  Am.  Dec.  744;  407;  Norway  Plains  Co.  v.  Boston, 
Lancaster  Mills  v.  Merchants'  Cotton  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Gray  (Mass.)  273,  ♦^l 
Press  Co.,  89  Tenn.  1,  24  Am.  St.  Rep.  Am.  Dec.  423. 
586,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  423.  15.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pound, 

ya.— Norfolk  &  W.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Stu-      111  Ga.  6,  36  S.  E.  312. 
ftrt's  Draft  Milling  Co.,  109  Va.  184,  16.  Moyer  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 

63  S.  E.  415.  31  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  559. 

A    railroad    company    keeping    the  17.  Brooks    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Southern 

(property   of   its   patrons    in    its   own      Ry.  Co.,  152  N.  C.  665,  68  S.  E.  243. 
warehouse  for  a  reasonable  time  until  18.  St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co.  v. 

it  shall  be  called  for,  is,   in  the  ab-      Chicago  &  A.   R.   Co.,   151   HI.   App. 
eenoe   of   statute,   to   be   regarded   as      384. 

a  bailee  for  hire,  and  not  a  naked  de-  19.  Eli  Hurley  &  Son  v.  Norfolk  & 

positary.      Hardman   v.   Montana   U.      W.  Ry.  Co.,  68  W.  Va.  471,  &»  S.  K 
R.   Co.,  48  U.  S.  App.  570,  39  L.  R.      904. 
A.  300,  83  Fed.  Rep.  88,  27  C.  C.  A. 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN.  38S 

quired  notice  to  the  consignee,  the  carrier's  relation  to  the  goods 
did  not  change  to  that  of  a  warehouseman  prior  to  the  giving  of 
such  notice.^  Where  a  consignee  directs  a  carrier  to  hold  goods 
at  destination  pending  negotiations  with  the  consignor  who  ac- 
quiesces in  its  holding,  if  the  goods  are  lost,  the  liability  is  that 
of  a  warehouseman.^^  After  tender  of  delivery  of  merchai^dise 
by  a  carrier  to  the  consignee,  the  carrier  is  at  liberty  to  store  suah 
merchandise,  and  thereafter  its  liability  ceases,  and  it  is  only  bound 
to  the  exercise  of  ordinary  care  and  diligence  in  the  preservation 
of  the  property.^ 

§  4.  The  New  Hampshire  rule. — English  rule. — Origin  of  differ- 
ent rules. 

In  New  Hampshire,  New  York  and  most  of  the  other  States 
what  is  known  as  the  New  Hampshire  rule  is  followed,  which 
holds  that  the  carrier's  liability  as  insurer  in  the  case  of  railroads 
continues  after  the  arrival  of  the  goods  at  their  destination  and 
their  removal  into  the  warehouse,  until  the  owner  or  consignee 
has  had  a  reasonable  time  in  which  to  call  or  send  for  them,  in 
spect  them,  and  take  them  away  or  reject  them.  The  carrier 'c 
duty  has  not  been  completely  performed  until  he  has  delivered 
the  goods,  or  oifered  to  deliver  them  to  the  consignee,  or  has  done 
what  is  equivalent  to  delivery  by  giving  to  the  consignee,  if  he 
can  be  found,  due  notice  after  their  arrival,  and  by  furnishing 
him  a  reasonable  time  thereafter  to  take  charge  of  and  remove  the 
same.  If  the  consignee  does  not  then  call  for  them,  liability  as 
a  common  carrier  ceases.^^     The  rule  laid  down  by  the  English 

20.  P.  Garvan,  Inc.,  v.  New  York  Co.,  68  N.  H.  206,  44  Atl.  304;  Mosea 
Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  210  Mass.  275,  96  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  N.  H.  523, 
N.  E.  717.  64    Am.   Dec.    388;    Jewell   v.   Grand 

21.  Seaboard  Air  Line  Ry.  Co.  v.  Trunk  R.  Co.,  55  N.  H.  84;  Smith  v. 
A.  R.  Harper  Piano  Co.,  63  Fla.  264,  Nashua,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  N.  H.  86,  59 
68   So.  491.  Am.  Dec.  364. 

22.  Bryan  v.  Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.,  N.  T. — King  v.  New  Brunswick, 
169  111.  App.   181.  etc.,    Steamboat    Co.,    36    Misc.    Rep. 

23.  N.    H.— Welch    t.    Concord    R.  (N.  Y.)    555,   73   N.   Y.   Supp.   999; 


S84 


THE  LAW  OF  CAKRIERS. 


authorities  is  substantially  the  same  as  the  New  Hampshire  rule. 
The  consignee  of  goods  shipped  is  entitled  to  a  reasonable  time 


Tarbell  v.  Royal  Exchange  Shipping 
Co.,  110  N.  Y.  170,  17  N.  E.  721,  6 
Am.  St.  Rep.  350;  Faulkner  v.  Hart, 
82  N.  Y.  413,  37  Am.  Rep.  574 ;  Sher- 
man V.  Hudson  River  R.  Go.,  64  N.  Y. 
254;  Nicholas  v.  New  York  Cent., 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  N.  Y.  370,  9  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Gas.  103;  Draper  v.  Dela- 
ware, etc.,  Canal  Co.,  118  N.  Y.  118, 
42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  410;  Pelton  v. 
Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  N.  Y.  214, 
13  Am.  Rep.  568;  Sprague  v.  New 
York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  52  N.  Y.  637; 
Mills  V.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  45  N. 
Y.  622,  6  Am.  Rep.  152;  Zinn  v.  New 
Jersey  Steamboat  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  442, 
10  Am.  Rep.  402;  Hedges  v.  Hudson 
River  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  223;  MoAnd- 
rew  V.  Whitlock,  52  N.  Y.  40,  11  Am. 
Rep.  657;  Rawson  v.  Holland,  59  N. 
Y.  611,  17  Am.  Rep.  394;  McKinaey 
V.  Jewett,  90  N.  Y.  267,  9  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  209 ;  Soloman  v.  Philadelphia, 
etc..  Steamboat  Co.,  2  Daly  (N.  Y.) 
104;  Price  v.  Powell,  3  N.  Y.  322; 
Fenner  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  N. 
Y.  505,  4  Am.  Rep.  709;  Byrne  v. 
Fargo,  36  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  543,  73 
N.  Y.  Supp.  943. 

The  question  of  reasonable  time  be- 
comes immaiterial  where  loss  or  in- 
jury results  from  a  want  of  ordinary 
care  on  the  part  of  the  carrier.  Lamb 
V.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Daly  (N. 
Y.),  454. 

Ala. — Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  A. 
F.  Merrill  &  Co.,  153  Ala.  277,  45  So. 
628;  Barclay  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  — 
Ala.  App.  — ,  60  So.  479;  Hearn  ▼. 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.,  —  Ala.  App. 
.— ,  60  So.  600,  under  Code  1907,  § 


5604  and  §  5613,  carrier  holds  goods 
as  warehouseman  after  48  hours' 
notice;  Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Hol- 
land, 109  Ala.  362,  19  So.  66;  Collins 
V.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  Ala. 
390;  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lud- 
den,  89  Ala.  612,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Gas.  404;  Annisiton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ledbetter,  92  Ala.  326;  South,  etc., 
Alabama  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  66  Ala.  167, 
9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  419,  41  Am. 
Rep.  749;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Go.  v. 
McGuire,  79  Alia.  395;  Kennedy  v. 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Ala.  430,  21 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  145;  Mobile,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Prewitt,  46  Ala.  63,  7  Am. 
Rep.  586;  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Kidd,  35  Ala.  209;  Western  R.  Co.  v. 
Little,  86  Ala.  159,  37  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  659;  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Grabfelder,  83  Ala.  200. 

Ark. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Go.  v. 
Dodd,  59  Ark.  317;  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  v.  Nevill,  60  Ark.  375,  28  L.  R. 
A.  80. 

Cal. — Cavallaro  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  110  Gal.  348;  Wilson  v.  Califor- 
nia Gent.  R.  Co.,  94  Cal.  166,  17  L. 
R.  A.  685.  Notice  must  be  given  to 
the  consignee  under  §  2120  of  the 
Civil  Code.  See  also,  Hirshfield  v. 
Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  56  Cal.  484,  7 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  398;  Jackson  v. 
Sacramento  Valley  R.  Co.,  23  Cal. 
270.  See  also,  Reeder  v.  Wells,  Fargo 
&  Co.,  14  Cal.  App.  790,  113  Pac.  342, 
holding  that  section  2120  required 
that  the  consignee  be  given  actual 
notice  of  the  arrival  of  the  freight  in 
order  to  change  the  carrier's  liability 
to    that    of    warehouseman,    so    that 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN.  335 

within  which  to  take  away  the  goods,  and  that  reasonable  time 


where  the  notice  to  the  oonsiemee  of 
the  arrival  of  freight  was  dated  June 
25th,  but  was  mailed  in  the  post  of- 
fice on  the  morning  of  June  26th, 
And  the  freight  was  destroycid  on  the 
night  of  June  25th,  the  carrier's  lia- 
bility was  that  of  carrier,  and  not  of 
a  warehouseman. 

Conn. — Graves  v.  Hartford,  etc., 
Steamboat  Co.,  38  Conn.  143,  9  Am. 
Eep.  369. 

Del.  —  McHenry  v.  Philadelphia, 
■etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Harr.   (Del.)   448. 

Kan. — Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Patten,  3  Kan.  App.  338;  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Wichita,  etc..  Grocery 
■Co.,  55  Kan.  525;  Leavenworth,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Maris,  16  Kan.  333. 

Ky. — Ix)uisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v. 
Stiles,  Gaddie  &  Stiles,  133  Ky.  786, 
119  S.  W.  786;  Wald  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Ky.  645;  Jeflferson- 
ville.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cleveland,  2 
Bush.    (Ky.)   473. 

La. — ^Gibbons  v.  Yazoo  &  M.  V.  R. 
€0.,  130  La.  671,  58  So.  505 ;  Maignan 
V.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Oo,,  24  La. 
Ann.  333. 

Md. — United  Fruit  Co.  v.  New 
York  &  B.  Transp.  Co.,  104  Md.  567, 
65  Atl.  415;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v. 
Green,  25  Md.  72. 

Mich. — Black  v.  Ashley,  80  Mich. 
90,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  428 ;  Feige 
V.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Oo.,  62  Mich.  1 ; 
Buckley  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  18 
Mich.  121;  McMillen  v.  Michigan 
Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Mich.  79, 
93  Am.  Dec.  208;  Hasse  v.  American 
Express  Co.,  94  Mich.  133,  34  Am.  St. 
Rep.  328,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  635. 

Minn. — Kirk  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  59  Minn.  161,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

25 


Cas.  203 ;  Arthur  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  38  Minn.  95;  Derosia  v.  Winona, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Minn.  133;  Pinney  v. 
First  Div.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 
Minn,  251,  20  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  71;  Arm- 
strong V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45 
Minn.  85,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  422. 

A^eft. — Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Arms,  15  Neb.  69. 

N.  J. — ^Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ayres, 
29  N.  J.  L.  393,  80  Am,  Dec.  215. 

^'  C. — Poythress  v.  Durham  &  S. 
Ry.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  391,  62  S.  E.  515, 
18  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.)  427. 

Ohio. — Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hatch,  6  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  Rep.  230,  52 
Ohio  St.  408,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
293,  note;  Hirsoh  v.  Steamboat  Qua- 
ker City,  2  Disney   (Ohio),  144. 

S.  C. — Kniglit  V.  Southern  R.  Co., 
85  S.  C.  78,  67  S.  E.  16;  Brunson  & 
Boatwright  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R. 
Co.,  76  S.  C.  9,  56  S.  E.  538;  Hipp 
v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  50  S.  C.  129,  27 
S.  E.  623;  Spears  v.  Spartanburg, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  S.  C.  158. 

Tex. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hay- 
nes,  72  Tex.  175;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Adams,  49  Tex.  748,  30  Am.  Rep. 
116;  San  Antonio  &  A.  P.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Winn  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  132  S.  W. 
972,  under  Sayles'  Ann.  Civ.  St.  1897, 
art.  324;  R.  W.  Williamson  &  Oo.  v. 
Texas  &  P.  Ry,  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
138  S.  W.  807. 

Vt. — Winslow  V.  Vermont,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  42  Vt.  700,  1  Am.  Rep.  365; 
Blumenthal  v,  Brainard,  38  Vt.  402, 
91  Am,  Dec,  350;  Ouimit  v,  Henshaw, 
35  Vt,  605,  84  Am.  Dec,  646, 

Wis. — Backhaus  v,  Chicago,  etc,  R. 
Co.,  92  Wis,  303;  Lemke  v.  Chicago, 
etc,,  R,  Co,,  39  Wis.  449,  13  Am.  Ry. 


S86 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


begins  from  notice  or  knowledge.  When  sucli  time  has  elapsed 
the  carrier  becomes  liable  as  warehouseman  merely.^*  The  con- 
flict of  opinion  as  to  the  proper  rule  to  be  applied  in  such  cases 
arose  from  the  common  law  rule  requiring  actual  delivery  by  the 
carrier  to  the  consignee.  The  impracticability  of  actual  delivery 
by  railroads,  from  their  peculiar  character  and  the  magnitude 
of  their  business,  and  carriers  by  water,  made  a  modification  of 
that  rule  necessary  so  that  a  deposit  of  the  goods  and  notice  to 
the  consignee  were  made  a  substitute  for  actual  delivery.  The 
cases  holding  to  the  Massachusetts  view  go  upon  the  theory  that  the 
deposit  of  the  goods  in  the  carrier's  warehouse  is  a  quasi  delivery, 
or  in  lieu  of  actual  delivery,  and  at  once  ends  the  liability  as  a 
common  carrier,  while  those  which  hold  the  opposite  view  con- 
sider that  the  carrier  is  merely  relieved  from  actual  delivery  but 
still  remains  liable  as  carrier  until  the  consignee  receives  his 
goods,  or  until  he  has  failed  to  call  for  them  within  a  reasonable 
time  after  notice.^^    In  all  such  cases,  it  has  been  well  stated,  the 


Eep.  406;  Parker  v.  Milwaukee,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  30  Wis.  689,  7  Am.  Ry.  Rep. 
255;  Wood  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
.  27  Wis.  541,  9  Am.  Rep.  465;  Wood 
'  V.  Crocker,  18  Wis.  345,  86  Am.  Dec. 
773;  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fair- 
child,  6  Wis.  403. 

U.  8. — ^The  City  of  Lincoln,  25  Fed. 
835;  The  Mary  Washington,  1  Abb. 
(U.  S.)  1,  Chase's  Dec.  (U.  S.)  125, 
as  to  common  carriers  by  water. 
Hardman  v.  Montana  Union  R.  Co., 
48  U.  S.  App.  570,  83  Fed.  88,  27  C 
C.  A.  407,  39  L.  R.  A.  300. 

W.  Va. — Berry  v.  West  Virginia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  W.  Va.  538,  30  S.  E. 
143,  11  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  103. 
24.  Eng. — Chapman  v.  Great  West- 
ern R.  Co.,  5  Q.  B.  Div.  278,  49  L.  J. 
Q.  420,  42  L.  T.  N.  S.  252;  Bradshaw 
V.  Irish  Northwestern  R.  Co.,  7  Ir.  R. 
C.  L.  252;  21  W.  R.  581;  Shepherd  v. 


Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  3  Exch.  189, 
37  L.  J.  Exch.  113;  Mitchell  v.  Lan- 
cashire, etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  10  Q.  B. 
256;  Neston  Colliery  Oo.  v.  London, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Ry.  &  C.  T.  Cas.  257; 
Rowe  V.  Pickford,  8  Taunt.  83,  4  E. 
C.  L.  27;  Matter  of  Webb,  8  Taunt. 
443,  4  E.  C.  L.  159;  G-arside  v.  Trent, 
etc.,  Nav.  Co.,  4  T.  R.  581. 

Can. — Richardson  v.  Canadian  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  19  Ont.  Rep.  369,  45  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  413.  But  see  Hall  v. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  34  N.  C.  Q.  B. 
517;  Bowie  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 
U.  0.  C.  P.  191;  Inman  v.  Buffalo, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  U.  C.  C.  P.  325 ;  O'Neill 
V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  7  U.  C.  C.  P. 
203;  Millon  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co., 
21  Ont.  App.  Rep.  404. 

25.  See  cases  cited  under  §  3  and 
this  section,  supra. 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN.  387 

question  to  be  determined  is  whether  anything  remains  to  be  done 
bj  the  carrier  in  completion  of  its  contract  to  safely  carry  and  de- 
liver the  goods  at  the  place  of  destination.  If  there  is,  its  lia- 
bility as  carrier  continues.  If  there  is  not,  and  the  goods  remain 
in  the  possession  of  the  carrier,  its  liability  in  respect  thereof, 
when  not  varied  by  contract  or  usage,  is  as  warehouseman  only.^^ 
A  railroad  company  does  not  cease  to  be  a  carrier  and  become  a 
warehouseman  by  placing  goods  upon  a  wharf,  with  notice  to  a 
steamship  company,  which  has  not  taken  actual  custody  of  them, 
to  remove  them  as  soon  as  possible.^^  Where  a  consignee  of  goods 
shipped  over  defendant's  line  called  for  them  and  was  told  that 
they  were  there,  but  could  not  be  delivered  to  him  until  the  next 
day,  and  they  were  destroyed  by  fire  that  night,  defendant's  lia- 
bility was  that  of  a  carrier;  the  warehouseman's  liability  not 
commencing  until  after  the  consignee,  acting  with  reasonable 
promptness,  has  had  a  chance  to  remove  the  goods.^^  To  change 
the  relation  of  a  corporation  to  a  trunk,  which  it  has  transported 
and  still  holds  under  its  contract  of  carriage,  from  that  of  carrier 
to  one  holding  it  on  storage,  it  is  enough  that  it  contracts  for 
storage  thereof;  delivery  thereof  by  it  under  its  first  contract, 
and  then  redelivery  to  it  under  its  second  contract,  not  being 
necessary.^'  That  a  consignee  paid  freight  charges  on  a  shipment 
and  signed  the  waybill  without  removing  the  shipment,  which 
arrived  a  few  days  before,  did  not  show  release  of  the  company's 
liability  as  warehouseman.^**    A  carrier  must  show  some  open  act 

26.  Gregg  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  173  U.  S.  348,  43  L.  Ed.  725,  Adv.  S. 
147  111.  550,  37  Am.  St.  Rep.  238,  61  U.  S.  475,  19  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  421,  13 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  212;  Chicago,  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  U.  S.  236.  See 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Warren,  16  111.  502,  63  also  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reiss,  99 
Am.  Dec.  317;  East  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Fed.   1006,  39  C.  €.  A.  680. 

Co.  V.   Wabash,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   123  111.  28.  Fisher    v.    Northern    Pac.    Ry. 

594;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  Co.,  49  Wash.  258,  94  Pac.  1073. 
etc.,  R.   Co.,   25   Fed.   317.     See   also,  29.  Bondy    v.    American    Transfer 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sawyer,  G9  Co.,  15  Cal.  App.  746,  115  Pac.  965. 
111.  285,  18  Am.  Rep.  613.  30.  Saunders  v.   Southern  Ry.  Co., 

27.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clayton,  90  S.  C.  79,  72  S.  E.  637. 


388  THE  LAW  OP  CARRIERS. 

or  offer  of  delivery  of  goods  before  its  liability  can  be  changed 
from  that  of  a  carrier  to  that  of  a  warehouseman.'^  Where  a  mis- 
addressed package  was  not  delivered  to  the  consignee  for  that 
reason,  the  carrier  having  made  all  reasonable  efforts  to  find  the 
consignee  without  success,  and  a  reasonable  time  having  elapsed 
for  the  consignee  to  call  for  it,  the  package  remained  in  the  hands 
of  the  carrier  merely  as  a  warehouseman ;  the  carrier  being  bound 
only  to  guard  it  as  securely  as  it  guarded  its  own  property. ^^ 

§  5,  Change  in  nature  of  liability  of  carrier  in  general. 

Where  one  who  had  goods  in  defendant's  warehouse,  under 
storage  contract,  terminated  the  storage  agreement,  paid  all  de- 
fendant's charges,  and  surrendered  the  contract,  and  thereupon 
directed  defendant,  who  was  also  a  common  carrier,  to  deliver 
the  goods  at  her  residence  the  same  day,  and  paid  the  transporta- 
tion charges,  and  defendant  accepted  and  entered  the  order,  the 
defendant,  from  the  time  of  such  acceptance,  assumed  the  relation 
of  carrier.^^  The  liability  of  a  railway  company  as  a  common  car- 
rier does  not  cease  until  the  goods  are  deposited  in  a  depot  or 
warehouse.^  Where  freight  less  than  a  car  load  was  transported 
by  a  carrier,  its  liability  as  a  warehouseman  did  not  begin  until 
it  had  unloaded  the  freight  at  its  warehouse  at  destination,  and 
notified  the  consignee  that  it  was  ready  for  delivery.^^  A  carrier 
cannot  be  held  liable  as  a  warehouseman  for  the  loss  of  goods, 
unless  it  appears  that  the  contract  of  carriage  has  been  completed.^^ 
If  a  carrier  is  delayed  a  whole  season  by  stress  of  weather,  he  is 
still  responsible  for  the  safe-keeping  of  the  goods  as  a  carrier,  and 

31.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Oo.  v.  Gay,  112  Tenn.  239,  79  S.  W.  124,  64  L.  R. 
143  Ky.  56,  135  S.  W.  400.  A.    443. 

32.  Mott  V.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  35.  Wall-Huske  Co.  v.  Southern  R. 
123  N.  Y.  Supp.  49.  Co.,  147  N.  C.  407,  61  S.  E.  277. 

33.  Snelling  v.  Yetter,  25  App.  36.  Wheeler  v.  Oceanic  Steam  Nav. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  590,  49  N.  Y.  Supp.  Co.,  52  Hun  (N.  Y.)  75,  5  N.  Y. 
917,  27  Civ.  Proe.  R.  158.  Supp.  101,  21  Am.  St.  Rep.  729.     See 

34.  Pennsylvania   R.  Oo.  v.  Naive,  also  Labar  v.  Taber,  35  Barb.  (N,  Y.) 

305,  as  to  shipment  by  water. 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN.  389 

not  as  a  mere  warehouseman."     A  common  carrier  is  liable  as 
such  for  goods  intrusted  to  him  from  the  commencement  of  the 
trip  until  the  goods  are  delivered  to  the  consignee,  or  until  they 
are  stored  in  a  warehouse,  where  they  have  not  been  taken  by  the 
consignee  after  diligence  had  been  exercised  to  notify  him.^^    De- 
livery to  a  compress  by  a  railroad  company  under  the  regulations 
of  the  Eailroad  Commission,  requiring  a  railroad,  when  requested 
by  the  shipper  of  cotton,  to  deliver  it  to  the  nearest  compress  on 
the  line  of  its  route  for  compressing,  being  at  a  point  between  that 
of  shipment  and  that  stipulated  by  the  bill  of  lading  for  delivery 
to  the  consignee,  does  not  change  its  liability  for  the  cotton  while 
at  the  compress  from  that  of  common  carrier,  as  it  existed  at  com- 
mon law,  which  Texas  Kev.  St.  1895,  art.  320,  prevents  its  limit- 
ing to  that  of  warehouseman;  but  under  article  323,  providing 
that  the  railroad  company  shall  be  liable  as  common  carrier  from 
the  commencement  of  the  trip  till  the  goods  are  delivered  to  the 
consignee,  at  the  point  of  destination,  the  compress  is  its  agent; 
and  it  can  relieve  itself  of  liability  for  the  burning  of  the  cotton 
at  the  compress,  under  its  stipulation  against  liability  for  fire, 
only  by  pleading  and  proving  that  its  negligence,  or  that  of  its 
servants,  did  not  contribute  to  such  loss.^^ 

§  6.  Conflict  of  laws. 

The  statutory  law  of  one  State  will  be  enforced  by  the  courts 
of  other  States  and  the  Federal  courts,  that  construction  of  the 
statute  being  taken  which  is  given  to  it  by  the  highest  tribunal  of 
the  State  which  enacted  iV    Where  goods  are  shipped  from  one 

37.  Western  Transp.  Co.  v.  New-  40.  Fairfield  v.  County  of  Gallatin, 
hall,  24  111.  (14  Peck)  466,  76  Am.  100  U.  S.  47 ;  County  of  Leavenworth 
Dec.  760.  V.  Barnes,  94  U.  S.  70;   Peik  v.  Ohi- 

38.  Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Schnei-  cago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  U.  S.  164;  Town 
der,  1  White  &  W.  Civ.  Cas.  Ct.  App.  of  South  Ottawa  v.  Perkins,  94  U.  S. 

(Tex.),  §   119.  260;  Township  of  Elmwood  v.  Marcy, 

39.  St.  Louis  &  S.  W.  Ry.  Co.  of  92  U.  S.  289;  Adams  v.  Nashville,  95 
Texas  v.  Brass,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  133  U.  S.  19;  Shelby  v.  Guy,  U  Wheat. 
S.    W.    1075.  fU.   S.)    367:    Leonard  v.    Columbia 


390 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


State  to  another  and  after  reaching  their  destination  are  lost  or 
injured,  the  carrier  will  he  held  liable  according  to  the  law  of  the 
place  of  destination  in  an  action  brought  in  that  State/^  But  if 
an  action  be  brought  for  their  loss  or  injury  in  the  State  of  the 
place  of  shipment,  the  courts  of  the  latter  State  will  not  be  bound 
by  the  decisions  of  the  courts  of  the  former  State  upon  the  general 
principles  of  commercial  law.^  It  will  follow  the  law  of  the  place 
of  destination  where  that  law  depends  upon  statute.*^ 

§  7.  What  is  reasonable  time  for  the  removal  of  goods  generally. 

In  those  States  which  maintain  the  rule  that  the  liability  of 
a  common  carrier  with  respect  to  the  goods  carried  by  it  continues 
for  a  reasonable  time  after  their  arrival  at  destination  in  which 
the  consignee  must  call  for  and  remove  his  goods,  considerable 
difficulty  is  experienced  in  determining  what  is  such  reasonable 


Steam  Nav.  Co.,  84  N.  Y.  48;  Jessup 
V.  Carnegie,  80  N.  Y.  441;  Crum  v. 
Bliss,  47  Conn.  592;  Russell  v.  Mad- 
den,  95   111.   485. 

Wihere  contracts  have  been  made  or 
vested  rights  acquired  upon  the  faith 
of  a  construction  given  to  the  consti- 
tution or  s.tatutes  of  a  state  by  its 
Mghest  courts,  the  Federal  courts  and 
courts  of  other  states  will  enforce 
feuch  contracts  and  protect  such 
rights  although  a  different  construc- 
tion should  subsequently  be  given  by 
the  local  courts.  Gelpcke  v.  City  of 
Dubuque,  1  Wall.  (U.  S.)  175;  Have- 
meyer  v.  Iowa  County,  3  Wall  (U. 
S.)  294;  Ol'cott  v.  The  Supervisors 
of  Fond  du  Lac,  16  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
678;   Harris  v.  Jex,  55  N.  Y.  421. 

41.  Springs  v.  South  Bound  R.  Oo., 
46  S.  C.  104,  24  S.  E.  166;  Heath 
V.  South  Bend  R.  Co.,  Id.;  Rice  v. 
Hart,  118  Mass.  201. 

42.  Faulkner  v.  Hart,  82  N.  Y.  413, 
87  Am.  Rep.  574;   Franklin  v.  Two- 


good,  25  Iowa  520.  The  same  rule 
is  laid  down  by  the  United  States 
courts.  Myrick  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  107  U.  S.  102. 

In  an  action  brought  in  Georgia, 
however,  for  personal  injuries  re- 
ceived in  South  Carolina,  it  was  held 
that,  there  being  no  South  Carolina 
statute  regulating  the  rights  of  the 
parties  in  such  cases,  the  Georgia 
courts,  in  a  liberal  spirit  of  comity, 
would  apply  the  common  law  in 
South  Carolina  as  construed  by  its 
court  of  last  resort.  Atlantic,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Tanner,  68  Ga.  384.  See 
also  Waters  v.  Cox,  2  Bradwell  (111. 
App.),  129;  Ames  v.  McCamber,  124 
Mass.  85;  Cubbedge  v.  Napier,  62 
Ala.  518;  Haywood  v.  Daves,  81  N.  C. 
8;  Cragin  v.  Lamkin,  7  Allen 
(Mass.),  395;  Williams  v.  Oarr,  80 
N.  C.  294. 

43.  See  cases  cited  in  preceding 
notes  to  this  section. 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN.  39 X 

time.     A  consignee  must  promptly  and  diligently  remove  goods 
carried  within  a  reasonable  time  after  arrival,  without  regard  to 
distance  from  the  depot,  or  means  of  removal,  or  convenience, 
or  necessities  of  the  consignee.     Such  reasonable  time  has  been 
defined  to  be  such  as  would  enable  one  residing  in  the  vicinity  of 
the  place  of  delivery,  and  informed  of  the  probable  time  of  arrival, 
in  the  ordinary  course  and  during  the  usual  hours  of  business, 
to  inspect  and  remove  the  goods.'*'*     The  question  as  to  what  is 
a  reasonable  time  for  a  consignee  of  goods  to  remove  them  after 
notice  of  their  arrival,  where  there  is  no  dispute  as  to  the  facts,  is 
a  question  of  law  for  the  court.^^    A  consignee  may  not,  after  notice 
of  the  arrival  of  the  goods,  defer  taking  them  away  while  he 
attends  to  other  ali'aira,  but  he  must  at  once  and  without  inter- 
mission remove  them.**^     If  there  be  a  conflict  of  evidence  as  to 
the  material  facts,  or  the  facts  are  doubtful,  the  question  as  to 
what  was  a  reasonable  time  under  the  circumstances  of  the  par- 
ticular case  should  be  submitted  to  the  jury/'     So,  also,  if  any 
doubt  or  question  is  made  as  to  whether  the  goods  were  lost  while 
the  carrier  was  liable  as  common  carrier  or  as  warehouseman.^ 

44.  Berry  v.  West  Virginia,  etc.,  Wis.  449,  13  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  403; 
R.  Co.,  44  W.  Va.  538,  30  S.  E.  143,  Frank  v.  Grand  Tower,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
11  Am.  &   Eng.   R.   Cas.  N.   S.   103;       57  Mo.  App.  181. 

Bell  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Mo.  46.  Tarl>ell      v.      Royal      Exchange 

App.    363;    Jeffersonville    R.    Co.    v.  Shipping  Co.,  110  N.  Y.  180,  17  N.  E. 

Cleveland,  2  Bush    (Ky.)    473;   Leav-  731,   6  Am.  St.  Rep.  ^^0;    Hedges  v. 

enworth,    etc.,    R.    Oo.    v.    Maris,    15  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  supra;  Roth  v. 

Kans.  333;  Wood  v.  Crocker,  18  Wis.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  N.  Y.  548,  90 

345,  86  Am.  Dec.  773;  Derosia  v.  Wi-  Am.  Dec.  734. 

nona,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    18    Minn.    133;  47.  Wood    v.    Milwaukee,    etc.,    R. 

Broadwell   v.   Butler,   6   McLean    (U.  Co.,  27  Wis.  541,  9  Am.  Rep.  465,  3 

S.)   296.  Am.   Ry.   Rep.   342;    Coxon  v.   North 

45.  Hedges  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Eastern  R.  €0.,  4  Ry.  &  C.  T.  Cas. 
Co.,  49  N.  Y.  223,  3  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  284.  See  also  cases  cited  under  pre- 
346;   Bennett  v.  Lycoming,  etc.,  Ins.  ceding  notes  to  this  section. 

Co.,  67  N.  Y.  278;  Poythress  v.  Dur-  48.  Sessions    v.    Western    R.    Corp. 

ham  &  S.  Ry.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  391,  62  16  Gray   (Mass.)   132;  Columbus,  etc., 

S.  E.  515,  18  L.  R.  A.    (N.  S.)    427;  R.  Co.  v.  Ludden,  89  Ala.  612.  42  Am. 

Davis    V.    Gwynne,    57    N.    Y.    677;  &   Eng.   R.   Oas.   404;    Lamb  v.   Cam- 

Lemke    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    39  den,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Daly  (N.  Y.)   454. 


"00  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

The  reasonable  time  allowed  to  the  consignee  in  which  to  remove 
the  goods  commences  only  after  notice  to  or  actual  knowledge  by 
him  of  their  arrival,  in  those  States  where  notice  is  required;* 
while  in  other  States,  the  consignee  is  charged  with  knowledge  of 
their  arrival  and  is  not  entitled  to  notice  or  to  a  reasonable  time  to 
learn  of  their  arrival.^"  The  liability  of  a  carrier  may  be  changed 
to  that  of  a  warehouseman  or  ordinary  bailee,  before  the  elapse  of 
a  reasonable  time  for  removal,  by  the  acts  of  the  parties,  as  where 
the  goods  are  deposited  on  the  platform  in  the  usual  place  ready 
for  delivery,  the  consignee  notified  thereof,  and  he  pays  the 
freight;"  or  where  the  consignee  has  receipted  for  the  goods  and 
paid  the  charges  and  removed  a  part  of  the  goods  f^  or  the  goods 
have  been  stored  in  a  warehouse  of  the  carrier,  by  express  direc- 
tion of  the  consignee,  subject  to  call;^  or  where  the  carrier,  by 
agreement  with  the  consignee  and  for  mutual  convenience,  stores 
goods  on  arrival  in  its  freight  house  for  the  night.^*  Where  the 
carrier  is  ready  to  deliver  and  the  consignee  refuses  to  take  away 
his  goods,  the  carrier  can  only  be  held  tiicroafter  as  bailee  of  the 
owner,  or,  in  the  event  that  it  charges  for  storags,  as  warehouse- 
man.^^   The  fact  that  the  consignee  resides  at  a  distance  from  the 

49.  See  Necessity  of  Notice,  §  10.  4  E.  0.  L.  159;  Tlowe  v.  Pickford,  8 
post;  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co,  v.  Hale,  Taunt.  83,  4  E.  C.  L.  27;  Garside  v. 
6  Mich.  243.  Trent,   etc.,   Nav.   Co.,   4   T.   R.   581; 

50.  Berry  v.  West  Virginia,  etc.,  Mayer  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  31  U. 
R.  Co.,  44  W.  Va.  538,  30  S.  E.  143,  C.  C.  P.  248. 

11  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Oas.  N.  S.  103.  See  54.  Fenner  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

also  Notice  to  Consignee,  §  9,  post.  44  N.  Y.  505,  4  Am.  Rep.  709 ;  Blum- 

51.  New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  enthal  v.  Brainard,  38  Vt.  402,  91 
Campbell,  12  Ind.  55.  Am.  Dec.  350;  Southern  Express  Co. 

52.  Oderkirk  v.  Fargo,  58  Hun   (N.  v.  Holland,  109  Ala.  362. 

Y.)   347,  34  St.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)   166,  11  55.  Hathorn  v.  Ely,  28  N.  Y.   78; 

N.  Y.   Supp.   871.  Stowe  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113 

53.  Hartman  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Mass.  521;  Rothschild  v.  Michigan 
Co.,  39  Mo.  App.  88;  Chapman  v.  Cent.  R.  Co.,  69  IlL  164;  Mohr  v. 
Great  Western  R.  Co.,  5  Q.  B.  Div.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Iowa  579; 
278,  49  L.  J.  Q.  B.  420;  MoCosson  v.  American  Sugar  Refining  Oo.  v,  Mc- 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  23  U.  C.  C  P.  Ghee,  96  Ga.  27;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
107;  Matter  of  Webb,  8  Taunt,  443,  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Fed.  317, 


5& 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN.  39^ 

place  of  delivery,  or  is  absent  therefrom  and  has  no  agent  there, 
is  not  to  be  taken  into  consideration  in  determining  what  is  a 
reasonable  time  in  which  he  should  remove  the  goods,  nor  is  it  to 
be  measured  by  any  peculiar  circumstances  in  his  condition  and 
situation  rendering  him  unable  promptly  to  take  the  goods  away. 
If  the  responsibility  of  a  carrier  have  once  terminated,  by  safely 
delivering  the  goods  to  the  consignee,  it  cannot  be  revived  by  the 
latter  returning  them  to  the  carrier's  warehouse,  without  notice 
to  the  warehouseman.^^  Ordinarily,  it  is  the  carrier's  duty  to  un- 
load the  goods  and  deposit  them  in  its  warehouse,  or  on  its  plat- 
form or  wharf  in  the  usual  and  proper  place  to  afford  oppor- 
tunity to  the  consignee  to  remove  them,  and  the  reasonable  time 
for  removal  does  not  begin  to  run  until  this  has  been  done.* 
Where,  however,  it  is  the  consignee's  duty,  by  reason  of  usage  or 
special  contract,  to  unload  the  goods,  the  carrier's  duty  is  dis- 
charged when  the  goods  are  placed  in  a  safe  and  convenient  loca- 
tion for  unloading,  as  by  placing  the  cars  on  a  side  track,  or  at  an 
elevator  or  warehouse,  where  the  consignee  may  unload  them,  and 
its  liability  as  a  common  carrier  ceases  after  the  consignee  has 
had  reasonable  opportunity  to  call  for  and  remove  them.^*    Where 

23  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Oas.  718;  Kremer  Oolumbus,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  Luddcn,  89 

V,    Southern    Express    Co.,    6    Coldw.  Ala.  612,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  404. 

(Tenn.)     356;     Young    v.    Smith,    3  57.  Salinger    v.   Simmons,    8    Abb, 

Dana   (Ky.)   91,  28  Am.  Dec.  57.  Pr.  N.  S.    (N.  Y.)   409,  2  Lans.    (N. 

56.  Northrup  v.   Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Y.)   325,  57  Barb.   (N.  Y.)    513. 

Oo.,  3  Abb.  App.   (N.  Y.)   386,  5  Abb.  58.  King  v.   New  Brunamck,    etc., 

Pr.  N.   S.    (N.  Y.)    425;    Hilliard  v.  S.  Co.,  36  Misc.  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    555,   73 

Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Jones  L.  N.  Y.  Supp.  999;  Hedges  v.  Hudson 

(N.  C.)    343;  Lemke  v.  Chicago,  etc..  River  R.   Co.,  49  N.  Y.   223,   3  Am. 

R.  Co.,  39  Wis.  449,  13  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  Ry.  Rep.  346;  ■Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  t. 

406;  Richardson  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Bensley,    69    111.    630;    McHenry    v. 

Co.,  19  Ont.  Rep.  369,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    4    Ilarr. 

R.  Cos.   413;    Moses  v.   Boston,   etc.,  (Del.)    448;   Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v 

R.  Oo.,  32  N.  H.  523,  64  Am.  Dec.  391;  Haynes,   72  Tex.   175;    Mohr  v.   Clii- 

Wilson  V.  California  Cent.  R.  Co.,  94  cago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Iowa  579. 

Cal.  166,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Oas,  625;  59.  Draper  v.  Delaware,  etc..  Canal 

Chalk  V.   Charlotte,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   85  Co.,  118  N.  Y.  118,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

N.  C  423,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Oas.  106;  Co.   410;    Gregg  v.  Illinois   Cent.  R. 


39i 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


the  consignee  has  paid  tlie  freight  and  taken  steps  toward  remov- 
ing the  goods  and  is  afforded  a  reasonable  opportunity  for  so  doing, 
and  iiunecessarily  delays  the  removal,  the  carrier  cannot  be  held 
responsible.'^'*  Nor  is  the  carrier  longer  responsible  after  delivery 
to  an  elevator  company,  although  a  receipt  for  the  goods  in  accord- 
ance with  the  usual  custom  has  not  been  taken.^^  What  was  a 
reasonable  time  and  what  was  not  a  reasonable  time  in  which  the 
consignee  should  call  for  and  remove  his  goods  has  been  adjudged 
in  many  cases  under  various  circumstances,  some  of  which  are 
referred  to  in  the  notes.^^ 


Co.,  147  111.  550,  37  Am.  St.  Rep. 
238,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  208;  Pin- 
dell  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Mo. 
App.  84;  Independence  Mill  Co.  v. 
Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa  535, 
2  Am.  St.  Rep.  258,  32  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  456;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Nash,  43  Ind.  423. 

60.  Goodwin  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  50  N.  Y.  154,  10  Am.  Rep.  457, 
revg.  58  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  195;  Wood- 
ward V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  33  111. 
App.  433. 

61.  Arthur  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  38  Minn.  95,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Oas.  449. 

62.  Reasonable  time. — Wynantskill 
Knitting  Co.  v.  Murray,  90  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  554,  36  N.  Y.  Supp.  26,  from 
Saturday  afternoon  until  the  follow- 
ing Wednesday;  Tarbell  v.  Royal  Ex- 
change Shipping  Co.,  110  N.  Y.  170, 
6  Am.  St.  Rep.  350;  Backhaus  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Wis.  393,  three 
days;  Chalk  v.  Charlotte,  et<;.,  R.  Co., 
85  N.  C.  423,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
106,  two  days ;  Lemke  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  39  Wis.  449,  13  Am.  Ry.  Rep. 
406,  from  Saturday  evening  until  the 
Tuesday  following,  at  noon;  Colum- 
bus, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ludden,   89  Ala. 


612,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  404,  three 
days;  Derosia  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
18  Minn.  133,  8  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  363; 
Anniston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ledbetter,  92 
Ala.  326,  six  days;  Leavenworth,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Maris,  16  Kan.  333,  eight 
days;  Arthur  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
38  Minn.  95,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
449,  one  day;  Solomon  v.  Philadel- 
phia, etc.,  Express  Steamboat  Co.,  2 
Daly  (N.  Y.)  104,  from  Saturday 
morning  to  the  following  Monday 
morning;  Blumenthal  v.  Brainerd,  38 
Vt.  402,  91  Am.  Dec.  350,  over  night, 
where  the  consignee  had  called  for  a 
box  at  defendant's  depot,  found  it 
ready,  and  left  it  there,  intending 
to  call  for  it  the  next  morning; 
United  Fruit  Co.  v.  New  York  &  B. 
Transp.  Co.,  104  Md.  567,  65  Atl.  415, 
where  consignee  had  the  rest  of  the 
day  after  noon  and  the  whole  of  the 
following  day  to  remove  the  goods. 

Not  a  reasonable  time. — McKinney 
V.  Jewett,  90  N.  Y.  267,  9  Am.  & 
Eng.  t  Cas.  209,  where  consignees 
were  not  notified  of  the  arrival  of 
goods  until  Saturday  evening,  too 
late  for  removal,  and  before  they 
could  be  removed  on  Monday  morn- 
ing   following,    they    were    injured; 


LIABILITY  AS   WAREHOUSEMAN.  395 

§  8.  Time  extended  by  failure  or  refusal  to  deliver. 

Where  goods,  after  arrival  at  their  destination,  have  been  ap- 
plied for  or  demanded,  but  are  refused  or  detained  by  the  carrier, 
except  where  the  goods  are  properly  held  for  freight  charges  due, 
the  carrier's  liability  as  an  insurer  of  the  goods  may  be  extended 
beyond  what  would  ordinarily  be  a  reasonable  time  and  be  con- 
tinued until  a  reasonable  time  after  the  goods  have  been  offered 
for  delivery  to  the  consignee.^  The  carrier's  liability  as  a  com- 
mon carrier  continues  without  regard  to  the  time  the  goods  may 
have  actually  been  ready  for  delivery,  where  the  consignee  is  pre- 
vented, without  fault  on  his  own  part,  from  removing  and  caring 
for  his  goods  by  reason  of  the  failure  of  the  carrier  to  have  the 
goods  ready  for  delivery,  or  so  placed  that  they  can  be  unloaded 
with  reasonable  convenience;^  or  because  of  being  wrongly  in- 
formed by  the  carrier  or  its  agent,  through  mistake,  on  calling  for 
the  goods,  that  they  have  not  arrived,  although  they  have  arrived 
and  are  stored  in  the  depot  or  warehouse  ;'^^  or  by  any  similar 

Woodward  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  33  arrived  between   1   and  3   P.  M.  and 

111.   App.   433;    Wood  v.   Crocker,   18  were  burned  in  the  warehouse  the  fol- 

Wis.    345,    86    Am.    Dec.    773,    where  lowing    night;     Dunham    v.    Boston, 

goods   were   destroyed   by   fire   under  etc.,    R.    Co.,   46    Hun    (N.   Y.)    245, 

similar      circumstances;       Louisville,  where  the  consignee  began   removing 

etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McGuire,  79  Ala.  395 ;  the  goods  as  soon  as  they  arrived,  but 

Parker  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  before    he    could    remove   all    a   part 

Wis.    689,    7    Am.    Rep.    255,    where  remaining   in   the   car   burned;    Cen- 

gooda   arriving   during    the   day   and  tral  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  A.  F.  Merrill 

were  destroyed  by  fire  on  the  follow-  &  Co.,  153  Ala.  277,  45  So.  628,  seven 

Ing  night;   Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  hours. 

Oden,    80   Ala.    38,    where    goods   ar-  63.  Faulkner    v.    Hart,    82    N.    Y. 

rived   on   Friday,   but  consignee   was  413,  37  Am.  Rep.  574;  Louisville,  etc., 

told  Saturday  morning  that  they  had  R.    Co.    v.    McGuire,    79    Ala.    395; 

not  arrived,  and  they  were  burned  on  Richmond,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  White,   88 

Sunday;    Lake   Erie,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v.  Ga.  805,  15  S.  E.  802,  12  Ry.  &  Corp. 

Hatch,   52   Ohio   St.   403,  where  con-  L.  J.   273. 

signee  was  notified  at  six  o'clock  in  64.  Independence     Mills       Co.     v. 

the     evening    and     the     goods     were  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa  535, 

burned   during   the   following   night;  2  Am.  St.  Rep.  258,  33  Am.  &  Eng. 

Moses  V.   Boston,   etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  N.  R.  Cas.  456. 

H.  523,  64  Am.  Dec.  381,  where  goods  65.  McKinney  v.  Jewertt,  90  N.  Y. 


396  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

conduct  or  wrongful  act  on  the  part  of  the  carrier.^  In  some 
jurisdictions  the  carrier  is  held  not  to  continue  liable  as  an  insurer 
bj  reason  of  such  failure  in  the  goods  being  delivered  through 
misinformation  or  mistake  on  the  part  of  the  carrier,  but  is  held 
liable  as  a  warehouseman  on  the  ground  that  its  negligence  in 
failing  to  deliver  the  goods,  or  causing  them  to  be  detained,  is 
the  proximate  cause  of  loss/^  But  where  by  the  terms  of  the 
contract  of  shipment  the  liability  is  that  of  a  warehouseman, 
negligence  must  be  shown  to  render  the  carrier  liable.^  And 
where  the  consignee  has  had  sufficient  time  for  the  removal  of  the 
goods  after  the  discovery  and  correction  of  a  mistake  as  to  their 
arrival,  and  notice  thereof,  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  loss  on  the 
ground  of  conversion.^' 

§  9,  Notice  to  consignee  held  not  essential. 

Those  authorities  which  maintain  the  Massachusetts  doctrine 
that  the  carrier's  liability  as  insurer  in  the  case  of  railroads,  ends, 
and  it  assumes  the  liability  of  a  warehouseman  upon  the  comple- 
tion of  the  transportation  and  a  safe  storage  of  the  goods,  also 
hold  that  the  carrier  is  under  no  obligation,  upon  the  arrival  of 
the  goods  at  their  destination,  to  give  the  consignee  notice  of  their 

267,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Oas.  209 ;  Meyer  Am.  Rep.  252,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Oas. 

V.  Cticago,  etc.,  R.  Ck>.,  24  Wis.  566,  481;  Union  Pac.  R.  iGo.  v.  Moyer,  40 

1  Am.  Rep.  207;  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Kan.   184,   10   Am.   St.   Rep.   183,   35 

Co.  V.  Arms,   15  Neb.   69,   16  Am.  &  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  615;   East  Ten- 

Eng.   R.   Cas.   272;    Jeffersonville   R.  nessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  91  Tenn. 

Co.  V.   Cotton,   29   Ind.   498,   95   Am,  699,    55    Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas,    621; 

Dec.   656;    Louisville,  etc.,  R.   Co.   v.  Bowie  v.   Buffalo,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   7   U. 

Campbell,  7  Heisk.   (Tenn.)    258.  C.  C.  P.  191. 

66.  Campion  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  68.  Draper  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Cana,l 
Co.,  43  Fed.  775;  Derosia  v  Winona,  Co.,  118  N.  Y.  118,  42  Am.  &  Eng. 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Minn.  133,  8  Am.  Ry.  R.  Cas.  410;  Fenner  v.  Buffalo,  etc., 
Rep.    363.  R.   Co.,   44   N.   Y.    505,   4   Am.    Rep. 

67.  Central     Trust     Co.     v.     East  709. 

Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Fed.  764;  69.  Williams     v.     Delaware,     etc., 

Stevens    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R    Co.,    1  Canal  Co.,   53  Hun    (N.  Y.)    635,  25 

Gray  (Mass.)  277;  Kansas  City,  etc.,  St.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)   518,  6  N.  Y.  Supp. 

R  Co.  V.  Morrison,  34  Kan.  502,  55  36,   3  Silv.  Sup.  Ct.    (N.  Y.)    19. 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN.  397 

arrival,  and  its  liability  is  not  affected  by  a  failure  to  give  such 
notice.  The  consignee  is  charged  with  notice  of  the  arrival  of 
the  goods,  the  reasons  for  the  rule  being  stated  that  the  consignee 
is  reasonably  assumed  to  have  been  advised  by  the  shipper  of  the 
time  the  goods  are  likely  to  arrive,  and  that  it  is  more  just  and 
reasonable  to  place  upon  him  the  duty  of  keeping  track  of  his 
own  goods  than  to  charge  the  carrier  with  the  practically  impos- 
sible burden  of  notifying  each  consignee  of  the  time  of  arrival  of 
each  package  passing  through  its  hands.™  This  view  has  been 
followed  in  certain  other  jurisdictions.^^ 

§  10.  Necessity  of  notice  maintained. 

On  the  other  hand,  those  authorities  which  maintain  the  New 
Hampshire  doctrine  that  in  the  case  of  railroads  the  carrier's 
liability  as  an  insurer  continues  after  the  arrival  of  the  goods  at 
their  destination,  until  the  consignee  has  had  a  reasonable  time  in 
which  to  call  for  and  remove  his  goods,  hold  that  such  liability 
continues  until  the  consignee  has  been  notified  by  the  carrier  of 
the  arrival  of  the  goods,  and  that  in  order  to  change  the  responsi- 
bility to  that  of  a  warehouseman,  notice  to  the  consignee  is  neces- 
sary. This  rule  is  based  upon  the  reasoning  that  it  is  unreasonable 
to  require  the  consignee  to  be  in  constant  attendance  at  the  place 
of  destination  in  order  to  ascertain  the  arrival  of  the  goods,  and 
that  it  is  reasonable  that  the  carrier's  liability  should  not  be  re- 
duced to  that  of  a  warehouseman  only,  until  after  notice  has  been 
given  to  the  consignee  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods  and  the  lapse 
of  a  reasonable  time  thereafter  in  which  to  take  them  away.^^    The 

70.  See  authorities  cited  under  §  bama  cases  cited  under  §  4,  ante. 
3,  ante.  The     rule    in    this     state    has    been 

71.  Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ayers,  changed  in  some  cases  by  statute. 
29  N.  J.  L.  393,  80  Am.  Dec.  215;  See  also  Jeftersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Spears  v.   Spartanburg,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  Cleveland,  2  Bush  (Ky.)  468. 

11    S.    C.    158;    Collins   v.    Alabama,  72.  See  authorities   generally  cited 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  Ala.  390,  61  Am.  &      under  §  4,  note  1,  ante. 
Eng.    R.    Caa.    229,    and    other    Ala- 


S98 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


statutes  in  several  of  the  States  require  such  notice  to  be  giveu.'* 
The  carrier  is  also  bound  to  give  notice  in  all  ciises  where  it 
specially  contracts  to  do  so,  although  such  notice  is  not  required 
in  the  absence  of  contract.^*  The  carrier  may  be  excused  from 
giving  notice  to  the  consignee,  although  required  to  do  so,  v^here 
the  consignee  or  his  agent  already  had  actual  knowledge  of  the 
arrival  of  the  goods  ;^^  or  where  notice  cannot  be  given  because 
the  consignee  has  no  place  of  business  or  residence  at  the  point 
of  destination  or  he  or  his  address  are  unknown  to  the  carrier  and 
cannot  be  ascertained,^^  or  where  an  established  course  of  business 
or  usage  known  to  both  consignee  and  carrier  has  dispensed  with 
such  notice.^^  The  giving  of  notice,  where  it  is  necessary,  wil] 
not  affect  the  liability  of  the  carrier  for  injuries  which  have 
already  been  sustained  by  the  goods.^^     The  rule  is  well  estab- 


73.  Wilson  v.  California  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  94  Cal.  166,  17  L.  R.  A.  685; 
Hirshfield  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  56 
Cal.  484,  7  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  398; 
Butler  V.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
8  Lea  (Tenn.),  33,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  249;  Collins  v.  Alabama,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  104  Ala.  300;  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  Haynes,  72  Tex.  175,  37 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  645;  Houston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Adams,  49  Tex.  748, 
30  Am.  Rep.  116.  See  also  statutes 
of  Alabama,  California,  Tennessee 
and  Texas. 

74.  Tanner  v.  O'il  Creek  R.  Co.,  53 
Pa.  St.  411,  ana  the  company's 
freight  agent  may  bind  the  company 
by  an  agreement  to  give  such  notice. 

75.  Fenner  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
44  N.  Y.  505,  4  Am.  Rep.  709;  Fin- 
ney V.  First  Div.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  19  Minn.  251;  Bradshaw  v. 
Irish  Northwestern  R.  Co.,  21  W.  R. 
581;  Richardson  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  19  Ont.  Rep.  369,  45  Am.  ft  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  413. 


76.  Pel  ton  v.  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  54  N.  Y.  214,  13  Am.  Rep.  568; 
Northrop  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 
Abb.  App.  Dec.  (N.  Y.)  386,  5  Abb 
Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  425;  Butler  v, 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Lea 
(Tenn.),  33,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
249;  Kohn  v.  Packard,  3  La.  224,  23 
Am.  Dec.  453. 

77.  Gibson  v.  Culver,  17  Wena 
(N.  Y.)  305,  31  Am.  Dec.  297;  J. 
Russell  Mfg.  Co.  v.  New  Haven 
Steamboat  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  121,  52  N. 
Y.  657;  Ely  v.  New  Haven  Steam- 
boat Co.,  53  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  207;  Pin- 
dell  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Mo 
App.  675;  The  Mary  Washington, 
Chase's  Dec.  (U.  S.)  125.  Compare 
M'ierson  v.  Hope,  2  Sweeny  (N.  Y.), 
561;  Dean  v.  Vaccaro,  2  Head 
(Tenn.),  488,  75  Am.  Dec.  744. 

78.  Tlie  Mary  Washington,  Chase's 
Dec.  (U.  S.)  125;  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  White,  88  Ga.  805,  15  S.  E. 
802,  12  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  273. 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN.  399 

lished  in  reference  to  carriers  by  water,  owing  to  their  peculiar 
methods  of  transportation,  that  ordinarily  they  must  notify  the 
consignee  of  the  arrival  of  goods  before  their  liability  as  carriers 
terminates;  but  such  notice  may  be  waived  by  former  course  of 
dealing  with  the  consignee,  or  by  usage  prevailing  among  carriers 
in  the  same  trade  at  that  portJ* 

§  11.  Sufficiency  of  notice. 

A  notice  is  sufficient  which  actually  informs  the  consignee  of 
the  arrival  of  his  goods  at  the  place  of  destination.*'^  A  newspaper 
notice,  addressed  to  the  public  generally,  is  not  a  valid  notice, 
unless  shown  to  have  been  brought  to  the  consignee's  attention.^^ 
If  notice  be  sent  by  mail,  instead  of  being  given  person- 
ally, the  carrier  must  bear  the  consequences  of  any  delay  in  its 
receipt,  and  the  positive  evidence  of  the  consignee  that  he  did  not 
receive  a  mailed  notice  until  a  certain  date  is  entitled  to  greater 
weight  than  the  inference  that  he  received  it  at  an  earlier  date, 
which  may  be  drawn  from  the  fact  of  its  being  mailed  at  an  earlier 
date.*^  Where  a  statute  requires  a  notice  to  be  mailed  proof  of 
mailing   is   sufficient   without   production  of   the  notice   itself.*^ 

79.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Carter,  peller  Co.,  60  Pa.  St.  109,   100  Am. 

165  111.  570,  46  N.  E.  374,  revg.   62  Dec.   541;    Hermann  v.   Groodrich,   31 

111.    App.    618;    McAndrew   v.    Whit-  Wis.    536;    94   Am.   Dec.   562;    Koirn 

lock,  52  N.  Y.  40,  11  Am.  Rep.  657;  v.  Packard,   3  La.  224,  23  Am.  Dee. 

The  Boskenna  Bay,  40  Fed.  93;  Tar-  453;  Richardson  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R. 

bell  V.  Royal  Exchange  Shipping  Co.,  Co.,    19    Ont.    Rep.    369,    45    Am.    & 

110  N.   Y.   170;    Lake   Erie,   etc.,   R.  Eng.  R.  Cas.  413;   Bourne  v.  GatliflF, 

Co.  V.  Hatch,  52  Ohio  St.  408;   Bas-  42  E.  C.  L.  337,  33  E.  0.  L.  364,  3 

night  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  N.  M.  &  G.  643,  11  CI.  &  F.  45 

C.  592;  Brand  v.  New  Jersey  Steam-  80.  Cavallaro    v.    Texas,    etc.,    R, 

boat  O).,  10  Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)    128;  Co.,  110  Cal.  348,  42  Pac.  918. 

Frank  v.  Grand  Tower,   etc.,  R.   Co.,  81.  Rome    R.    Co.    v.    Sullivan,    14 

57  Mo.  App.  181;   Allam  v.  Pennsyl-  Ga.  277. 

vania  R.  Co.,  138  Pa.  104,  41  W.  N.  82.  Solomon    v.    Philadelphia,   etc., 

C.  205,  38  Atl.  709,  39  L.  R.  A.  535;  Steamboat  Co.,  2  Daly    (N.  Y.),  104. 

Hill  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.  83.  Collins    v.    Alabama,    etc.,    R. 

104    Mass.    122,    6    Am.    Rep.    202;  Co.,  104  Ala.  390. 
Shenk    v.    Philadelphia    Steam    Pro- 


400 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


IsTotice  to  a  husband  is  notice  to  the  wife  where  the  facts  warrant 
the  presumption  that  the  husband  was  acting  as  the  wife's  agent." 
Notice  may  be  implied  from  the  general  usage  and  course  of 
business  between  the  parties,  in  which  case  it  is  not  necessary  to 
prove  notice.*^  Under  a  statute  providing  that  a  carrier  shall  be 
liable  only  as  a  warehouseman  after  it  has  used  due  diligence  to 
notify  consignee  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods,  what  is  due  diligence 
depends  upon  the  circumstances  of  the  case.^®  Where  failure  of 
an  express  company  to  give  notice  by  mail  of  the  arrival  of  a 
package,  when  such  is  the  adopted  mode,  is  not  the  proximate 
cause  of  delay  in  removing  the  package,  and  the  loss  would  have 
occurred  if  it  had  been  mailed,  and  sufficient  time  had  elapsed  for 
the  receipt  thereof  if  notice  had  been  mailed,  and  the  consignee 
had  exercised  reasonable  diligence,  the  carrier  is  liable  as  ware- 
houseman only.*'^ 

§  12.  Notice  to  consignor. 

It  is  quite  generally  held  that  when  goods  sent  by  a  common 
carrier  have  arrived  at  their  destination,  and  have  been  tendered 
to  and  refused  by  the  consignee,  the  contract  for  their  carriage  has 
been  performed,  and  after  the  consignee  has  had  a  reasonable  time 
to  call  for  and  receive  them,  the  carrier  becomes  merely  a  ware- 
houseman, and  responsible  for  the  care  of  a  warehouseman  in  pro- 
tecting the  consignor's  interest,  and  is  not  bound,  as  a  general  rule, 
to  notify  the  consignor  of  the  non-acceptance  of  the  goods  by  the 
consignee.^    Where  goods  are  received  by  a  carrier,  to  be  delivered 


84. 


Furman    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.       Express  Co.,  63  W.  Va.  128,  59  S.  E. 


949. 


Co.,  68  Iowa  219,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

Cas    730  ^^-  Kremer    v.    Southern    Express 

85.  Wood  V.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  356;  Steam- 
Co.  27  Wis.  541,  9  Am.  Rep.  465,  2  boat  Keystone  v.  Moies,  28  Mo.  243, 
Am'    Ry.  Rep.   342.  75  Am.  Dec.  123;   Lesinsky  v.  Great 

86.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Western  Dispatch,  13  Mo.  App.  575; 
Hicks,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  158  S.  W.  Hull  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  60  Mo. 
-gg     '  App.    593;    Hudson   v.    Baxendale,    3 

87.  Hutchinson    v.    United    States  H.  &  N.  575. 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN.  401 

to  the  consignee,  on  payment  of  tlie  amount  due  therefor,  if  tho 
latter  be  not  prepared  to  pay,  on  notice  of  their  arrival,  but 
promise  to  do  so  in  a  few  days,  but  before  payment  the  carrier's 
office  is  broken  into  and  the  goods  stolen,  or  the  goods  are  destroyed 
by  fire,  the  carrier's  liability,  after  notification  to  the  consignee, 
is  that  of  a  warehouseman  only,  and  the  authorities  would  not 
seem  to  require  notice  to  the  consignor  in  such  a  case,  though 
notice  may  be  sometimes  necessary.^*  The  carrier  must  conduct 
itself  as  a  reasonable  and  prudent  man  would  do  with  reference 
to  it,  and  whether  it  is  reasonable  that  it  should  give  such  notice 
may  be  a  question  for  the  jury,  but  it  is  not  liable  for  omitting 
to  give  it  unless  it  is  the  failure  to  give  such  notice  which  caused 
the  loss.®"  The  carrier  is  not  liable  to  the  consignor  for  failure 
to  give  him  notice  of  the  refusal  of  the  consignee  to  receive  goods, 
where  the  consignor  has  failed  to  disclose  his  name  and  address.®^ 
It  has  been  held,  on  the  other  hand,  that  where  goods  transported 
by  an  express  company  are  by  it  tendered  to  the  consignee,  and 
he  fails  to  receive  and  pay  for  them,  the  express  company  is  under 
obligation  to  notify  the  consignor.  When  this  is  done,  the  com- 
pany is  relieved  of  its  responsibility  as  a  common  carrier,  and 
holds  the  goods  subject  to  the  order  of  the  consignor;  but  not 

89.  Weed  v.  Barney,  45  N.  Y.  344,  sey  Steamboat  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  442,  10 
6  Am.  Rep.  96;   Grossman  v.  Fargo,      Am.  Rep.  402. 

6  Hun   (N.  Y.),  310;  Gibson  v.  Amer-  91.  Williams  v.   Holland,   22   How. 

ican  Merchants',  etc.,  Express  Co.,  1  Pr.    (N.   Y.)    137. 

Hun    (N.   Y.),    389,    3   T.   &   C.    (N.  Where  the  consignee  is  not  a  resi- 

Y.)    503;    Landsberg  v.   Dinsmore,   4  dent  of  the  plaoe  of  delivery,  and  tho 

Daly    (N.  Y.),  490.  carrier   after   due   inquiry   is   unable 

90.  Weed  v.  Barney,  45  N.  Y.  344,  to  find  him  and  delivers  the  goods  to 
6  Am.  Rep.  96;  Morrison  v.  Davis,  other  merchants  for  him,  such  deliv- 
20  Pa.  St.  171,  57  Am.  Dec.  645;  ery  being  bona  fide  and  according  to 
Denny  v.  New  York  Cent,  etc.,  R.  the  usage  of  trade,  the  carrier  is  not 
Co.,  13  Gray  (Mass.),  481,  74  Am.  liable  to  the  consignor.  Mayell  v. 
Dec.  645;  Hudson  v.  Baxendale,  2  H.  Potter,  2  Johns.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  371. 
&  N.  575.     See  also  Zinn  v.  New  Jer-  See  also  Fisk  v.  Newton,  1  Den.   (N, 


Y.)  45,  43  Am.  Dec.  649. 


26 


402  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

before.'^  And  in  otlier  cases,  that  the  carrier's  liability  as  such 
torininates  when  the  carrier  tenders  delivery  to  the  consignee 
imd  the  latter  declines  to  receive  the  goods,  and  it  becomes  charge- 
able as  a  warehouseman  only,  but  as  such  it  is  chargeable  with 
the  duty  of  notifying  the  consignor  of  the  refusal,  and  the  further 
duty  of  holding  the  goods  subject  to  the  orders  of  the  consignor.^^ 


§  13.  Liability  of  connecting  carriers. 

In  the  case  of  connecting  carriers  where  goods  pass  over  several 
connecting  lines,  the  rule  as  to  the  carrier's  liability  as  insurer 
terminating  upon  its  depositing  the  goods  in  its  warehouse  does  not 
apply,  but  in  such  a  case,  the  liability  of  each  carrier  continues 
generally  as  an  insurer  until  it  parts  with  the  possession  and  con- 
trol of  the  goods,  either  by  delivering  them  to  the  succeeding  car- 
rier, or  by  depositing  them  in  a  warehouse,  after  the  failure  or 
refusal  of  the  succeeding  carrier  to  receive  them."  But  the 
neglect  of  the  succeeding  carrier  to  receive  them  for  an  unreason- 
able time,  after  due  notice  and  request,  does  not  amount  to  a 
refusal  which  would  justify  the  carrier  in  terminating  its  relation 
as  carrier  by  a  new  disposition  of  the  goods.^"  iVnd  where  a  car- 
rier has  received  goods  for  transportation  to  a  point  beyond  its 
lines,  and  there  are  no  means  of  public  transportation  from  its 
terminus  to  the  place  of  destination,  its  duty  is  not  ended  by  mere 
delivery  to  a  warehouseman  there,  but  it  must  also  send  notice  to 
the  consignee  thereof.^® 

92.  American  Merchants',  etc.,  Ex-  Wis.  81,  5  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  303,  9  Am. 
press  Co.  v.  Wolfe,  79  111.  430.  Rep.  439;    Michigan   Cent.  R.   Co.  v. 

93.  American  Sugar  Refining  Oo.  Mineral  Springs  Mfg.  Co.,  16  Wall. 
V.  McGhee,  96  Ga.  37;  Green,  etc.,  (U.  S.)  318.  See  also  Connecting 
Nav.  Co.  V.  Marshall,  48  Ind.  596.  carriers,  chap.  20. 

94.  Brown,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pennsyl-  95.  Goold  v.  Chapin,  20  N.  Y.  259, 
vania   Co.,   63   Minn.   546,   65  N.   W.  75  Am.  Dec.  398. 

961,  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cafl.  N.  S.  640;  96.  Hermann  v.  Goodrich,  21  Wis 

Hooper   v.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co..   27      5r?6,  94  Am.  Dec.  562. 


LIABILITY  AS  WAEEHOUSEMAN.  403 

§  14.  The  burden  of  proof. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the  loss  bj  fire  of  a  car  received 
bj  it  from  another  company  while  it  is  standing  on  its  side  track 
at  its  destination  to  be  unloaded  by  the  consignee,  the  burden  of 
proof  is  on  the  carrier  to  prove  that  its  responsibility  is  that  of  a 
warehouseman  only,  where  that  defence  is  set  up;  the  liability 
of  a  common  carrier  having  once  attached  is  presumed  to  continue 
until  the  contrary  is  proven.  But  the  burden  of  proof  to  show 
that  its  liability  as  a  carrier  has  again  attached  is  thrown  upon 
the  opposing  party,  when  it  proves  that  it  has  delivered  the  car 
upon  its  side  track  to  the  consignee  for  unloading,  where,  by  its 
contract,  it  is  bound  when  the  car  is  unloaded,  to  transport  it  to 
another  place.®^ 

§  15.  Effect  of  special  contract  or  usage  on  rule. 

The  carrier  may  stipulate  that  its  liability  as  insurer  shall  cease 
with  the  arrival  of  the  goods  at  their  destination  and  their  being 
placed  on  the  platform,  or  in  the  storeroom  of  the  company,  ac- 
cording as  the  usage  of  business  may  require,  and  in  either  case 
its  liability  as  a  common  carrier  would  cease  after  the  consignee 
had  a  reasonable  time  to  call  for  and  remove  the  goods,  and  it 
would  be  liable  as  warehouseman  only.^^  It  may  stipulate,  by 
mere  notice  communicated  to  the  consignee,  that  it  will  not  be 
.responsible  for  goods  not  removed  within  a  reasonable  time,  and 
if  they  are  not  removed  in  such  time,  is  liable  as  a  gratitous  bailee, 
unless  a  charge  is  made  for  storage  during  that  time.^^  It  may 
stipulate  that  the  goods  must  be  removed  on  the  day  of  arrival  or 
stored  at  the  owner's  risk,  and  in  case  of  destruction  in  the  station, 

97.  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Oo.,  v.  United  Eng.  R.  C5as.  410;  Fenner  v.  Buffalo, 
States  Rolling  Stock  Co.,  136  111.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  N.  Y.  505,  4  Am.  Rep. 
643,  29  Am.  St.  Rep.  348,  49  Am.  &      709. 

Eng.  R.  Cas.  81,  27  N.  E.  59,  10  Ry.  99.  Harris    v.    Great    Western    R. 

&  Corp.  L.  J.  247,  revg.  36  111.  App.  Co.,  1  Q.  B.  Div.  515,  45  L.  J.  Q.  B. 

652.  I>iv.    729;    Van   Toll   v.    South   East- 

98.  Draper  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  ern  R.  Co.,  12  C.  B.  N.  S.  75,  104  E. 
Canal  Co.,  118  N.  Y.  118,  42  Am.  &  C.  L.  75,  31  L.  J.  C.  P.  241. 


404  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

that  no  damage  shall  accrue,  and  no  notice  of  the  arrival  need 
be  given  the  consignee  under  such  a  stipulation.^  But  vi'here  a 
charge  is  made  for  storage,  such  a  stipulation  does  not  qualify 
the  duty  of  the  carrier  as  warehouseman  and  free  it  from  the 
ordinary  responsibility  to  take  reasonable  care,  and  it  is,  there- 
fore, liable  for  damage  happening  through  its  negligence.^  A 
railroad  company,  acting  as  a  common  carrier,  may  stipulate, 
by  a  contract  express  or  implied,  that  its  liability  as  a  carrier 
shall  terminate  with  a  delivery  at  a  particular  point,  and  that 
it  will  assume  no  liability  at  all,  in  such  case,  as  warehouseman ; 
and  if  the  consignee  is  fully  advised  at  the  time  of  the  shipment 
that  the  company  has  no  agent  at  the  particular  station  or  place 
to  which  the  consignment  is  made,  and  the  failure  to  employ 
such  agent  is  not  shown  to  be  unreasonable  in  view  of  the  con- 
dition of  the  company's  business,  there  is,  in  the  absence  of  re- 
butting circumstances,  an  implied  consent  that  the  carrier's  re- 
sponsibility shall  be  dissolved,  when  he  has  done  all  that  the  nature 
of  the  case  permits  him  to  do,  according  to  the  reasonable  and 
proper  usages  of  his  business.^  Under  a  bill  of  lading  for  the 
delivery  of  goods,  at  the  place  of  destination,  to  a  transient  person, 
if,  on  arrival,  he  cannot  be  found,  on  inquiry,  the  carrier  is  re- 
lieved from  responsibility  by  delivering  the  goods  to  a  responsible 
third  party  there  for  the  consignee,  it  having  acted  bona  fide  and 
according  to  the  usage  of  trade;*  and  if  the  consignee  be  unable 

1.  Gashweiler   v,    Wabash,   etc.,   R.      on  a  side  track  at  such  place. 

Co.,  83  Mo.  112,  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Ordinarily,      however,      a     carrier 

Cas.  403,  53  Am.  Rep.  558.  must  have  a  place  of  its  own,  or  ao- 

2.  Mitchell  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  cess  to  the  places  of  other  compan- 
Co.,  44  L.  J.  Q.  B.  107,  L.  R.  10  Q.  B.  ies,  at  which  to  discharge  its  freight 
256.  See  also  Kimball  v.  Western  R.  and  to  take  care  of  it  for  the  con- 
Corp.,   6  Gray    (Mass.)    542.  signees  for  a  reasonable  time.     Ohi- 

3.  South,  etc.,  Alabama  R.  Co.  v.  cago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoyt,  37  111.  App. 
Wood,  66  Ala.  167,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  64. 

Cas.  419,  41  Am.  Rep.  749,  and  the  4.  Mayell  v.  Potter,  2  Johns.  Caa. 

liability  of  the  company  as  a  common  (N.  Y.)   371;  Fisk  v.  Newton,  1  Den. 

carrier  terminates  with  the  safe  de-  (N.    Y.)    45.      Where,    however,    the 

livery  of  the  car  containing  the  goods  carrier    binds    itaelf    to    deliver    th« 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN.  405 

to  remove  the  goods,  within  the  time  specified  by  the  carrier,  the 
latter  is  bound  to  store  them,  or  place  them  in  a  safe  place  for 
the  owner,  or  it  is  liable  for  any  damage  they  may  sustain.^ 
Usually  the  liability  of  the  common  carrier  continues  until  the 
delivery  of  the  goods,  but  a  uniform  and  established  usage  of  busi- 
ness, known  to  the  parties,  may  be  given  in  evidence,  to  determine 
when  the  carrier's  responsibility  as  a  common  carrier  terminates, 
as  well  as  when  it  commenced.®  A  stipulation,  rule,  or  special 
contract  requiring  goods  to  be  removed  by  the  consignee  within  a 
fixed  period,  after  which  the  liability  of  the  carrier  shall  be  that 
of  a  warehouseman  only,  must  be  reasonable,  or  it  will  not  be 
enforced ;  and  whether  it  is  reasonable  or  not  is  to  be  determined 
in  each  case  from  the  particular  circumstances  of  that  case.^ 
Where  the  carrier  accepts  goods  with  an  understanding  on  its 
part  that  they  may  be  left  at  its  depot  until  called  for,  its  liability 
is  that  of  a  warehouseman  only,  after  the  lapse  of  a  reasonable 
time  for  the  consignee  to  demand  and  receive  delivery  of  them,* 
and  where  the  property  is  allowed  to  remain,  after  its  arrival,  at 
the  depot,  for  the  convenience  solely  of  the  consignee,  the  liability 
of  the  carrier  is  that  of  a  w^arehouseman.^     But  such  agreements 

goods  to  its  own  agent,  it  is  liable  if  7.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  v. 
its  agent  deposits  them  in  the  ware-  Oden,  80  Ala.  38;  Miller  v.  Mars- 
house  of  a  third  person,  who  by  mis-  field,  112  Mass.  260;  Dimick  v.  Mil- 
take  delivers  them  to  the  wrong  per-  waukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Wis.  471; 
son.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kidd,  Collins  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104 
35  Ala.  209.  Ala.  390,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  229; 

5.  Cook   Y.   Erie   R.    Co.,   58   Barb.  Angle  v.   Mississippi,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   9 
(N.  Y.)    312.  Iowa,    487. 

6.  Stimson  v.  Jackson,  58  N.  H.  8.  Chapman  v.  Great  Western  R. 
138;  Farmers',  etc..  Bank  v.  Cham-  Co.,  42  L.  T.  N.  S.  252.  But  if  it 
plain  Transp.  Co.,  16  Vt.  52,  42  Am.  deliver  them  to  a  warehouseman  at 
Dec.  491.  But  no  custom  or  prac-  the  expiration  of  such  time,  it  is  not 
tice  of  the  carrier's  servants  in  as-  responsible  for  the  negligence  of  the 
sisting  consignees  to  move  or  unload  latter.  Bickford  v.  Metropolitan 
their  goods  can  affect  the  principal,  Steamship  Co.,  109  Mass.  151. 
after  the  duty  of  the  carrier  as  to  9.  Fenner  v.  Bufl'alo.  etc.,  R.  Oo., 
the  delivery  of  the  freiglit  has  ended.  44  N.  Y.  505:  Oderkirk  v.  Fargo,  58 
.Jewell  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  55  N.  Hun    (N.  Y.),  347. 

H.  84.  11  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  496. 


40  G  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

must  be  made  with  the  carrier's  authorized  agent,  or  with  one 
acting  within  the  apparent  scope  of  the  agent's  authority/"  The 
provisions  of  the  charter  of  a  railroad  company  or  other  incor- 
porated carrier  may  affect  its  liability  as  warehouseman,  but  a 
provision  that,  upon  notice  to  the  consignee  of  the  arrival  of  the 
goods,  the  carrier's  liability  shall,  after  the  lapse  of  a  reasonable 
time  for  the  consignee  to  remove  the  goods,  become  that  of  a  ware- 
houseman only,  is  simply  a  statement  of  the  general  rule  which 
prevails  in  most  States."  Where  the  bill  of  lading  stipulated  for 
notice  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods  to  a  third  person,  and  provided 
that,  if  the  property  was  not  removed  on  presentation  of  the  bill 
of  lading  by  the  third  person  within  forty-eight  hours  after  notice, 
the  carrier  was  liable  as  a  warehouseman  only,  the  third  person, 
on  receiving  notice,  must  within  forty-eight  hours  present  the  bill 
of  lading  if  he  wishes  to  hold  the  carrier  as  such,  as  after  that  time 
the  carrier  became  a  warehouseman.^^  If  the  defendant  railroad 
company,  in  accordance  with  its  "  universal  and  unbroken  cus- 
tom," at  the  station  to  which  it  transported  the  goods,  collected 
the  freight  charges  from  the  plaintiff  "  on  three  of  said  shipments 
of  freight,  and  then  and  there  agreed  to  safely  store  and  keep  said 
freight  in  "  its  warehouse  at  that  point  "  until  such  time  as  the 
same  might  be  called  for  and  receipted  for  by  the  petitioner,"  and 
under  this  arrangement  "  the  defendant  company  had  possession 
of  all  the  "  plaintiff's  goods  embraced  in  said  shipment,  "  when 
the  same  were  destroyed  by  fire  "  which  consumed  its  warehouse, 
the  duty  which  the  company  owed  to  the  plaintiff  relatively  to 
such  goods,  was  that  of  a  warehouseman,  and  not  that  of  a  carrier." 

10.  Oderkirk  v.  Fargo,  58  Hun  gan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hale,  6  Mich. 
(N.  Y.)  347;  Mulligan  v.  Northern  243;  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Ward, 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  4  Dak.  315,  29  N.  W.  659,      2  ]\Iich.  53S. 

27  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.,  33.  12.  Lyons  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc., 

11.  Mills  V.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  R.  Co.,  136  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  903, 
45  N.  Y.  622,  6  Am.  Rep.  152;  Michi-  120  N.  Y.  Supp  1133,  aff'g  judg.  119 
gan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mineral  Springs  N.  Y.  Supp.  703. 

Mfg.    Co.,    16    Wall.     (U.    S.)     318;  13.  Kight  v.  Wrightsville  &  T.  R. 

Michigan   Cent.   R.   Co.  v,  Lantz,   32      Co.,  127  Ga.  204,  56  S.  E.  383. 
Mich.  502,  8  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  74;  Michi- 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN.  407 

-§  16.  Duty  of  carrier  as  warehouseman  to  store  s.afely. 

It  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier,  after  having  safely  transported  goods 
to  their  destination,  to  unload  them  with  due  care  and  store  and 
keep  them  safely  in  its  warehouse  or  depot  for  and  on  account  of 
the  consignee  until  called  for,"  or  until  they  are,  after  the  lapse 
of  a  reasonable  time,  subjected  to  its  lien  for  charges.^^     A  rail- 
road company  is  liable  as  a  warehouseman  for  the  security  and 
htness  of  the  place  in  which  goods  shipped  over  its  road  are 
stored,  and  is  required  to  take  necessary  precaution  for  the  safety 
of  such  goods,  and  is  also  responsible  for  the  ordinary  care  and 
attention  of  its  servants  and  agents  in  caring  for  them,  so  that 
they  may  be  delivered  whenever  called  for.^®     Where  a  railroad 
company  is  required  by  special  contract  to  deliver  goods  at  a  par- 
ticular warehouse,"  or  by  statute  is  forbidden  from  storing  goods 
transported  in  any  warehouse  other  than  that  to  which  it  was 
specifically  consigned,  its  liability  as  a  common  carrier  continues 
imtil  a  storage  in  the  proper  warehouse.^^     The  obligation  of  a 
common  carrier  as  a  warehouseman  is  to  exercise  reasonable  care.^" 

14.  Scheu  V.  Benedict,  116  N.  Y.  Am.  &  Eng.  E.  Cas.  78.  See  also 
510,  15  Am.  St.  Rep.  426;  Cook  v.  Madan  v.  Covert,  81  N.  Y.  296; 
Erie  R.  Co.,  58  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  312;  Grossman  v.  Fargo,  6  Hun  (N.  Y.), 
Gregg  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  147  310.  A  common  carrier  is  not  justi- 
111.  550,  37  Am.  St.  Rep.  238;  Calm  fied  in  storing  goods  at  an  interme- 
V.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  71  111.  96;  diate  point,  because  he  considers  the 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bensley,  69  further  carriage  thereof  unsafe,  with- 
111.  630;  Rice  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  out  notice  to  the  consignor;  in 
Corp.,  98  ]Ma9s.  212;  Milwaukee,  etc.,  such  case  he  is  liable  for  the  neglect 
R.  Co.  V.  Fairfield,  6  Wis.  403;  Cul-  to  carry  to  the  place  of  destination. 
breth  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Van  Winkle  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  3 
Houst.    (Del.)    392.  Rob.   (N.  Y.)   59. 

15.  See  Carrier's  Lien  for  Charges,  17.  Moore  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R 
chap.    16.  Co.,  3  Mich.  23. 

16.  Grieve  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  18.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Saw- 
R.  Co.,  25  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  yer,  69  111.  285,  18  Am.  Rep.  613; 
518,  49  N.  Y.  Supp.  949;  Sunder-  Vincent  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 
land  V.  Westcott,  2  Sweeny  (N.  Y.)  111.  33;  People  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
^0,  40  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  468;  Mer-  Co.,  55  111.  95,  8  Am.  Rep.  631. 
chants'  Dispatch,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mer-  19.  .loerg  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  Ry, 
nam,   111   Ind.   5,   11  N.   E.   954,   31  Co.,  152  III.  App.  329. 


408 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


A  railroad  company  which  has  transported  freight,  and  afterwards 
placed  it  in  its  warehouse,  and,  knowing  the  consignee,  has  given 
him  no  notice  to  remove  it,  is  bound,  so  long  as  it  keeps  the  freight, 
to  keep  it  with  ordinary  care.^**  A  charge  requiring  a  carrier  to 
keep  a  sufficient  watch  to  preserve  goods  stored  in  its  depot  from 
loss  by  fire  imposes  too  great  a  burden  on  the  carrier,  where  it 
was  only  liable  for  the  exercise  of  reasonable  care  and  diligence.^^ 
An  instruction  making  it  the  carrier's  duty  to  provide  a  "  safe 
depository  "  for  the  goods  was  erroneous,  as  making  it  the  carrier's 
duty  to  store  the  goods  in  a  place  free  from  any  danger  of  any 
kind,  whereas  it  was  only  bound  to  use  ordinary  care  and  prudence 
in  providing  a  depository.^^  A  carrier  was  not  negligent  in  fail- 
ing to  unload  semi-perishable  evaporated  apples  after  notifying 
the  consignee  of  their  arrival  at  destination,  in  the  absence  of 
evidence  that  it  knew,  or  in  the  exercise  of  reasonable  diligence 
should  have  known,  that  the  apples  would  have  been  in  better 
condition  if  unloaded.^^  Where  a  carrier  had  no  depot  or  ware- 
house at  the  place  of  destination  for  the  storage  of  such  freight 
as  corn,  it  had  a  right  to  warehouse  the  corn  in  cars  on  side  tracks.^* 
A  carrier  who  has  carried  goods  for  the  consignor,  and  stored 
them  in  its  warehouse  subject  to  his  order,  is  liable  as  warehouse- 
man for  a  wrongful  delivery.^^  A  railroad  company  liable  as  a 
warehouseman  for  cotton  left  upon  its  station  platform  or  yard, 

20.  Lane  v.  Boston  &  A.  R.  Co.,  arrival  of  the  goods,  although  the 
112  Mass.  455.  latter    fails   to    remove   them   within 

21.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Gid-  a  reasonable  time;  and  it  vcill  still 
ley,  119  Ala.  523,  24  So.  753;  Texas  be  liable  if,  after  it  has  fully  dis- 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Flanary,  (Tex.  Civ.  charged  its  duty  as  a  carrier,  it  neg- 
App.)    50  S.  W.  726.  ligently  suffers  the  goods  to  be  dam- 

22.  Louisville     &     N.  R.     Co.     v.  aged  or  injured.    Id. 

BrowTilee,  77  Ky.   (14  Bush.)   590.  24.  Gratiot    Street    Warehouse    Co. 

23.  Becker  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  221  111.  418, 
109    App.    Div.    (N.   Y.)    230,    96    N.       77  N.  E.  675,  aff'g  judg.  122  111.  App. 


y.  Supp.  1. 
A  Carrie 
lieve  itself 
ing  the  consignee  timely  notice  of  the 


405. 


A  carrier  does  not  necessarily  re-  25.  Diamond    Joe    Line    v.    Carter, 

lieve  itself  from  all  Uability  by  giv-      76  lU.  App.  470. 


LIABILITY  AS   WAREHOUSEMAN.  409 

is  bound  to  exercise  ordinary  care  for  the  prevention  of  fire,  and 
to  extinguish  any  fire  which  may  occur.^^  A  carrier,  liable  only 
as  warehouseman,  is  not  liable  for  loss  of  freight,  unless  its  negli- 
gence caused  the  loss.^^  Where  a  carrier  has  become  liable  as 
warehouseman,  such  liability  continues  until  it  notifies  the  con- 
signee that  it  will  not  insist  on  storage  charges,  from  which  time 
as  a  gratuitous  bailee  it  is  held  only  to  slight  care.^  Even  if  the 
duty  of  a  railroad  in  respect  to  goods  was  that  of  a  warehouseman 
for  hire,  rather  than  a  gratuitous  bailee,  it  would  not  be  liable 
for  loss  of  the  property,  unless  the  loss  was  the  result  of  its  failure 
to  exercise  ordinary  care  for  its  protection,  under  statutes,  pro- 
viding that  depositaries  for  hire  are  bound  to  exercise  ordinary 
care  and  diligence,  and  are  liable  as  in  other  cases  of  bailment 
for  hire,  and  providing  that  a  warehouseman  is  a  depositary  for 
hire  and  is  bound  only  to  ordinary  diligence.^' 

§  17.  Carrier's  liability  as  warehouseman  for  negligence. 

When  a  carrier  has  become  a  warehouseman  as  to  goods  by 
reason  of  a  failure  to  remove  them  within  a  reasonable  time,  it  is 
liable  only  for  such  losses  or  injuries  as  are  shown  to  have  re- 
sulted from  want  of  ordinary  and  reasonable  care  on  its  part, 

26.  Chicago,    etc.,    Ry.    Co.    v.    S.  under  a  statute  which  provides  that 

Marshall    Bulley   &    Son,    (Tex.   Oiv.  "any     railroad     company     operating 

App.)   140  S.  W.  480.  any    line   in    this    territory    shall    be 

Statutory  liability. — A  statute,  ren-  liable   for   all   dam-ages  sustained   by 

dering  railroad  proprietors  liable  for  fire  originating  from  operating  their 

damages    to    property    by    fire    from  road,"    for    goods    destroyed    by    fire 

their   engines,   and   authorizing  them  while  in  its  possession  as  warehouse- 

ibo  insure  property,  situate  along  the  man  or  depositary.     Walker  v.  Eikle- 

line  of  the  road,  exposed  to  such  dam-  berry,  7   Okl.  599,  54  Pac.  553. 

age,  does  not  impose  a  liability  on  a  27.  Yazoo  &  M.  V.  R.  Co.  v.  Blum, 

railroad    for    merchandise    destroyed  —  Miss.  — ,  59  So.  92. 

by  fire,  in  its  freight  house,  belong-  28.  Brunson    &    Boatwright   v.   At- 

ing  to  a  consignee,  but  applies  only  lantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.,  76  S.  C.  9, 

to  property  in  the  control  of  others  56  S.  E.  538. 

along  its  line.     Welch  v.  Concord  R.  29.  Kight  v.  Wrightsville  &  T.  R. 

Co.,   68  N.  H.  206,  44  Atl.   304.  Co.,  127  Ga.  204,  56  S.  E.  363. 

A  railroad  corporation  is  not  liable' 


410 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


and  such  care  is  measured  by  the  care  a  reasonable  man  would 
take  of  his  own  property  under  the  same  circumstances,  or  such 
care  as  men  of  ordinary  or  reasonable  prudence  usually  bestow 
on  property  placed  in  their  custody  and  similarly  situated.^"  In 
such  cases  ordinary  or  reasonable  care  is  a  relative  term,  being 
governed  by  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  carrier.  In  vil- 
lages the  same  degree  of  security,  either  as  to  fire  or  burglary, 
cannot  be  required  of  a  warehouseman  or  a  common  carrier,  as 
such,  as  in  larger  cities,  where  greater  facilities  for  warehousing 
oxist.^^     The  carrier  being  liable  for  negligence  in  failing  to  pro- 


30.  As  to  what  is  ordinary  or  rea- 
sonable care,  see:  U.  S. — Farmers' 
L.  &  T.  Co  V.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Ck>.,  73 
Fed.  1003;  The  Guiding  Star,  53 
Fed.  936;  White  v.  Colorado  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  3  McCrary  (U.  S.),  559  5 
Dil,   (U.  S.)   428. 

Ark. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Dodd,  59  Ark.  317;  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Bone,  53  Ark.  26. 

Del. — Culbreth  v.  Philadelphia, 
i^^tc,  R.  Co.,  3  Houst.   (Del.)   392. 

III. — ^Ohicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scott, 
43  111.  132. 

loica. — Leland  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  (Iowa),  23  N.  W.  390,  21  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  108. 

Ky. — Wald  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  92  Ky.  645. 

Mass. — ^Aldrich  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  100  Mass.  31,  1  Am.  Rep.  76,  97 
Am.  Dec.  74;  Parker  v.  Lombard,  100 
Mass.  405. 

Md. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Schumacher,  29  Md.  168,  96  Am.  Dec. 
610. 

Minn. — Armstrong  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
E.  Co.,  45  Minn.  85,  45  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  422. 

Mo. — Levering  v.  Union  Transp., 
etc.,  Co.,  42  Mo.  88,  3  Am.  Rep.  245, 


97  Am,  Dec.  320;  E.  0.  Standard 
Milling  Co.  v.  White  Line  Cent, 
Transit  Co.,  122  Mo.  258,  61  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  186;  Yarnell  v.  Kansas 
City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Mo.  570;  Bren- 
nen  v.  St.  Louis,  92  Mb.  488,  16  Am. 
&  Eng.  Corp.  Cas.  486;  Alcorn  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  Mo.  81. 

A'^.  J. — Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ayres, 
29  N,  J.  L.  393,  80  Am.  Dec.  215. 

N.  C. — Turrentine  v.  Wilmington, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  N.  C.  375,  6  Am.  St. 
Rep.  602;  Glenn  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R. 
Cb.,  63  N.  C.  510. 

Pa. — McCarty  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.   Co.,   30   Pa.   St.   247. 

S.  C. — Brown  v.  Atlantic,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  19  S.  C.  39,  13  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cae.  479. 

Eng. — Searle  v.  Laverick,  L.  R.  9 
Q.  B.  122;  Biblin  v.  McMullen,  L.  R. 
2  P.  C,  317. 

31.  Laporte  v.  Wells,  Fargo,  etc., 
Express,  23  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  267,  48 
N.  Y.  Supp.  292,  if  there  is  no  better 
or  safer  place,  he  may  properly  leave 
a  box  of  jewelry  over  night  in  his 
express  office,  used  for  such  purpose; 
Brand  v.  New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co., 
10  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  128.  The  stip- 
ulation in  a  bill  of  lading  that  prop- 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN.  411 

vide  a  warehouse  properly  and  safely  constructed,  evidence  of 
the  character  of  the  freight  depot,  the  materials  of  which  it  is 
constructed,  its  liability  to  take  fire,  and  facts  of  a  similar  nature 
are  admissbile.^^  It  is  competent  to  show  the  degree  of  care  usually 
exercised  by  warehousemen  in  the  vicinity  in  similar  cases,^^  but 
not  that  the  goods  were  cared  for  with  the  same  degree  of  care  as 
was  always  bestowed  upon  that  kind  of  goods  at  that  station.^* 
Evidence  is  admissible  that  there  was  not  room  in  the  freight 
house  at  the  time  and  as  to  its  sufficiency  for  the  business  usually 
done  at  that  station,  to  disprove  negligence  in  leaving  goods  in  the 
open  air.^  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  to  recover  for  goods  lost 
by  fire  while  stored  in  a  warehouse,  through  the  alleged  negligence 
of  defendant  in  storing  them  in  an  imsafe  place,  evidence  is  ad- 
missible showing  the  condition  of  the  surrounding  buildings,  or 
that  smoking  in  the  locality  had  been  prohibited  by  a  city  ordi- 
nance, as  bearing  on  the  issue  as  to  such  negligence.^®  As  a  ware- 
houseman, the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  a  loss  caused  by  a  fire  wil- 
fully started,  by  an  employe,"  or  for  a  loss  caused  by  an  accidental 
fire,'^  or  for  goods  stolen,^®  or  for  losses  caused  by  the  explosion  of 

erty   not   removed   by   the   party   en-  York,  etc.,  S.  Co.,  130  Fed.  991. 

titled  to  receive  it  within  twenty -four  37.  Stewart    v.     Gracy,     93     Tenn. 

hours  after  its  arrival  at  destination  314. 

shall  be  at  the  sole  risk  of  the  owner,  38.  Aldrich  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

does   not    relieve    the   company    from  100  Mass.  31,  1  Am.  Rep.  76,  97  Am. 

liability    for   the    loss    of    the    goods  Dec.  74;   Chapman  v.  Great  Western 

owing  to   its   failure   to  exercise   the  R.    Co.,    28    W.    R.    566;     Collins    v. 

care    required    of    a    warehouseman.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   104  Ala.   390, 

Aaronson  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  23  61    Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.    229;    Bas- 

Misc.    Rep.    (N.   Y.)    666,    52   N.   Y.  night   v.   Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Ill 

Supp.  95.  N.   C.   592. 

32.  Whitney    r.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.  39.  Williams   v.   Holland,   22   How. 
Co.,  27  Wis.  327,  5  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  291.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)    137;    Lamb  v.   Western 

33.  Cass  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  R.   Corp.,   7  Allen    (Mass.)    98;   Neal 
Mass.   (14  Allen)   448.  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   8  Jones 

34.  Lane    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,  L.     (N.    C.)    482;    Mote    v.    Chicago, 
112  Mass.  455.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Iowa,  22,  1  Am.  Rep. 

35.  Stowe    V.    New    York,    etc.,    R.  212;    Finucane   v.   Small,   1   Esp.   N. 
Co.,  113  Mass.  521.  P.   315. 

36.  H.    C.    Judd    A    Root    v.    New 


412 


THE  LAW  OF  CARKIERS. 


packages,  the  contents  of  which  are  unknoMoi  to  it,*'^  or  for  loss  bj 
leakage  of  a  defective  cask/^  nor  for  similar  losses,  except  upon 
proof  that  such  losses  resulted  from  a  want  of  ordinary  care  on 
the  part  of  the  carrier  and  that  such  want  of  ordinary  care  was 
the  proximate  cause  of  such  losses;*^  as,  for  example,  where  the 
danger  from  fire  could  have  been  foreseen,  should  have  been  fore- 
seen, and  guarded  against, ^^  or  there  was  a  negligent  omission  to 
take  reasonable  and  prudent  precaution  to  guard  goods  in  its  cus- 
tody from  thieves."  The  carrier,  where  no  charge  is  made  for  the 
storage  of  goods,  like  other  gratuitous  bailees,  is  liable  only  for 
losses  occasioned  by  gross  negligence  on  its  part/^  But  although 
there  is  no  separate  charge  for  storage  during  the  reasonable  time 


40.  Weed  v.  Barney,  45  N.  Y.  344, 
6  Am.  Rep.  96;  White  v.  Colorado 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  5  Dill.  (U.  S.)  428,  3 
McCrary    ( U.  S.),  559. 

41.  Hudson  v.  Baxendale,  2  EL  & 
N.   575. 

42.  Cailiff  v.  Danvers,  1  Peake  N. 
P.  114;  Mackenzie  v.  Cox,  9  C.  & 
P    633,  38  E.  0.  L.  263. 

43.  Thomas  v.  Lancaster  Mills.  71 
Fed.  481,  34  U.  S.  App.  404;  Thomas 
V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Fed.  200, 
61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  206,  note; 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dodd,  59 
Ark.  317,  61  Am.  and  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
247. 

Tlie  fact  that  a  carrier  which 
placed  goods  received  for  shipment  in 
its  warehouse  took  adequate  precau- 
tions against  fire  on  its  own  prem- 
ises does  not  exonerate  it  from  lia- 
bility as  a  matter  of  law  for  the  de- 
struction of  the  goods  from  a  fire 
originating  on  adjoining  premises 
which  it  did  not  own  or  control,  al- 
though such  fire  was  so  violent  that 
it  was  impossible  to  prevent  it  from 
spreading  to  its  own  building,  where 


it  has  full  knowledge  of  the  manifest 
danger  to  its  own  premises  arising 
fi-om  the  specially  hazardous  condi- 
tion of  those  adjoining,  and  took  no 
means  to  guard  against  it.  Under 
such  circumstances,  it  may  have  been 
culpable  negligence,  and  a  breach  of 
duty  as  a  bailee  for  hire,  to  place 
the  goods  in  such  warehouse.  Judd 
V.  New  York,  etc.,  S.  Co.,  117  Fed. 
206,  54  C.  C.  A.  '238,  rehearing  grant- 
ed, 118  Fed.  826,  55  C.  C.  A.  438, 
aflF'd  128   Fed.   7,   62  C.  C.  A.   515, 

44.  Fauoett  v.  Nichols,  64  N.  Y. 
377. 

45  Treleven  v.  Northern  Pac.  R, 
Co.,  89  Wis.  598;  McCombs  v.  North 
Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  N.  C.  193; 
Smitli  V.  Nashua,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  N. 
H.  86,  59  Am.  Dec.  364;  Michigan 
Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shurtz,  7 
Mich.  515;  Hapgood  Plow  Co.  v. 
Wabash  R.  Co.,  61  Mo.  Ap/p.  372,  1 
Mo.  App.  Rep.  637;  Brown  v.  Grand 
Trunk  R.  Co.,  54  N.  H.  535,  11  Am. 
Ry.  Rep.  195;  Angle  v.  Mississippi, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Iowa,  555. 


LIABILITY   AS  WAREHOUSEMAN. 


413 


after  the  arrival  of  the  goods  in  which  the  consignee  may  call  for 
and  take  them  away,  yet  the  freight  to  be  paid,  fixed  by  the  car- 
rier as  a  compensation  for  the  whole  service,  is  paid  as  well  for 
the  temporary  storage  as  for  the  carriage,  and  such  temporary 
storage  is,  therefore,  not  gratuitous/^  The  carrier  has  a  right,  in 
the  absence  of  an  agreement  to  perform  the  entire  service  for  a 
stipulated  sum,  to  make  a  separate  charge  for  storage,*^  although 
in  some  jurisdictions  it  is  held  that  the  consignee  is  entitled  to 
have  his  goods  remain  in  the  depot  a  reasonable  time  in  which  to 
arrange  for  removing  them,  and  no  storage  can  be  charged  until 
after  the  lapse  of  such  time/*  Where  the  carrier  charges  for 
storage,  its  liability  is  that  of  a  bailee  for  hire  and  it  is  bound  to 
the  exercise  of  ordinary  care  for  the  safety  of  the  goods  in  its 
charge/^  The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  consignee  or  owner  of  the 
goods  to  prove  negligence  or  the  want  of  ordinary  care  in  the  cus- 
tody of  the  goods  on  the  part  of  the  carrier,  where  the  loss  of 
goods  has  occurred  while  the  carrier  held  the  goods  as  warehouse- 
man, as,  for  example,  where  the  goods  have  been  shown  to  have 
been  stolen  or  destroyed  by  fire/**    But  the  failure  of  the  carrier 


46.  Norway  Plains  Co.  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Gray  (Mass.),  272,  61 
Am.  Dec.  423;  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Prewitt,  46  Ala.  63,  7  Am.  Rep.  586; 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Camp,  53  Ga. 
596;  Brown  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co., 
54  N.  H.  535;  Mitchell  v.  Lancashire, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  10  Q.  B.  256;  Cai- 
rus  V.  Robins,  8  M.  &  W.  258 ;  White 
V.  Humphrey,  11  Q.  B.  43,  63  E.  C. 
L.  43. 

47.  Hurd  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  Steam- 
boat Co.,  40  Conn.  48;  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  Alexander,  20  111.  23;  Rome 
R.  Co.  V.  Sullivan,  14  Ga.  277;  Mil- 
ler V.  Mansfield,  112  Mass.  260; 
Dimmick  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R,  Co., 
18  Wis.  471. 

48.  Bansemer  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co., 


25  Ind.  434,  87  Am.  Dec.  367;  Mor- 
ris, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ayres,  29  N.  J.  L. 
393,  80  Am.  Dec.  215;  Brown  v. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  54  N.  H.  535, 
11  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  195. 

49.  Burroughs  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
Co.,  67  Mich.  351,  34  N.  W.  875. 

50.  Claflin  v.  Meyer,  75  N.  Y.  260; 
Jackson  v.  Sacramento  Valley  R.  Co., 
23  Cal.  269;  National  Line  Steamship 
Co.  V.  Smart,  107  Pa.  St.  492;  E.  O. 
Stannard  Milling  Co.  v.  White  Line 
Cent.  Trans.  Co.,  122  Mo.  258;  Den- 
ton V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Iowa, 
161,  35  Am.  Rep.  263;  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Weaver,  3  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas. 
§  60;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Man- 
chester Mills,  88  Tenn.  653.  Compare 
Almand   v.   Georgia   R.,   etc.,   Co.,   95 


414 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


to  deliver,  upon  demand,  goods  held  by  it  as  warehouseman,  casts 
upon  it  the  burden  of  accounting  for  them  and  showing  that  the 
goods  have  been  lost  without  any  negligence  on  its  part.^^  A  carrier 
of  goods  holding  them  as  a  warehouseman  is  responsible  for  dam- 
ages to  them  attributable  to  its  negligence.^^  In  the  absence  of  a 
showing  of  negligence,  a  railroad  company  is  not  liable  as  ware- 
houseman for  goods  left  in  a  car  under  an  agreement  for  payment 
of  demurrage.^  A  shipper  who  at  the  invitation  of  a  railroad 
company  left  upon  the  company's  station  platform  part  of  a  lot 
of  cotton  intended  for  shipment  for  which  the  railroad  company 
was  liable  as  warehouseman,  was  not  guilty  of  contributory  negli- 
gence, though  the  cotton  was  burned.^*  A  carrier's  responsibility 
as  a  warehouseman  having  attached,  it  is  still  liable  for  giving 
incorrect  information  misleading  the  consignee  so  as  to  prevent 
removal  before  the  goods  are  lost,  though  the  loss  is  not  imputable 
to  any  other  or  different  negligence,^^  Where  the  buyer  of  certain 
grain  shipped  by  rail  refused  to  receive  it,  and  the  railroad  com- 
pany requested  the  parties  in  interest  to  direct  the  disposition  of 
the  grain,  which  they  refused  to  do,  and,  there  being  no  proper 
storage  facilities  at  the  place  to  which  the  grain  was  consigned,  the 
railroad  took  it  to  another  town,  fourteen  miles  away,  where  it 
was  properly  stored,  the  railroad  company  was  not  liable  for 
damages  to  the  grain  caused  by  an  unprecedented  storm.^^ 

§  18.  Statute  making  railroad  company  liable  for  losses  by  fire. 

A  statute  making  a  railroad  company  liable  for  property  burned 

Ga,     775;     Missouri   Pac.   Ry.   Co.  v.  53.  Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Robertson 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Fed.  361.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  143  S.  W.  708. 

51.  Schwerin  v.  McKie,  51  N.  Y.  54.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  S.  Mar- 
180;  Bank  of  Oswego  v.  Doyle,  91  N.  shall  Bulley  &  Son  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
Y.  42;  Williamson  v.  New  York,  etc.,  140  S.  W.  480. 

R.  Co.,  56  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  508,  4  N.  55.  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  W.  T.  Ad- 

Y.  Supp.  834;  Brown  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  ams  Mach.  C,   165  Ala.  436,  51  So. 

R.   Co.,   19   S.  C.  39,   13  Am.  &  Eng.  779. 

R.  Cas.  479.  56.  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  North  Texas 

52.  Bobbink  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  82  N.  Grain  Co.,  32  Tex.  Civ.  App.  93,  74 
J.  L.  (53  Vroom)   547,  82  Atl.  877.  S.  W.  567. 


LIABILITY  AS  WAREHOUSEMAN.  41$ 

by  fire  communicated  by  its  engines  does  not  apply  where  the 
goods  burned  were  in  the  custody  of  the  company  as  a  warehouse- 
man;" but  it  does  apply  where  the  goods  were  in  a  storehouse 
owned  by  the  company,  but  used  exclusively  by  the  consignee, 
neither  the  relation  of  carrier  nor  warehouseman  existing  at  the 
time  of  the  fire.^^ 

§  19.  Proximate  cause  of  loss. 

Where  a  railroad  company  holding  property  in  its  warehouse 
as  a  bailee  for  hire  allowed  a  car  marked  "  Powder,"  which  was 
in  fact  empty,  but  locked,  to  be  placed  in  close  proximity  thereto, 
and  the  warehouse  caught  fire,  and  the  property  was  destroyed 
solely  because  the  firemen  was  prevented,  through  reasonable  fear 
of  the  powder  car,  from  extinguishing  the  fire,  the  company  was 
liable  for  the  loss.^^  Where  goods  are  placed  by  a  carrier  in  its 
warehouse,  and  the  consignee  inquiries  for  tbem  a  number  cf 
"  times,  but  is  told  each  time  they  are  not  there,  the  carrier  is  liable 
as  a  warehouseman  for  their  destruction  by  fire,  notwithstanding 
the  fire  may  have  occurred  without  any  negligence  on  its  part,  as 
the  failure  to  deliver  was  the  proximate  cause.^"  When  grain  stored 
in  a  carrier's  elevator  is  destroyed  by  a  fire  not  caused  by  its  negli- 
gence, its  delay  in  not  removing  the  grain  as  speedily  as  it  should 
have  done  does  not  render  it  liable  for  the  loss ;  the  fire,  and  not 
the  delay,  being  the  proximate  cause  of  the  loss.'^  Where  barrels 
containing  oil  were  carelessly  handled  by  the  employe  of  defend- 
ant, and,  while  leaking,  were  delivered  to  another  carrier  in  an 

57.  Bassett  v.  Connecticut  River  R.  60.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v. 
C!o.,  145  Mass.  129,  13  N.  E.  370,  1  Kelly,  91  Tenn.  699,  20  S.  W.  312,  17 
Am.  St.  Rep.  443,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  L.  R.  A.  691;  Id.  91  Tenn.  708,  20  S. 
Cas.   528.  W.   314,   17  L.   R.  A.   691,   following 

58.  Blaisdell  v.  Connecticut  River  Deming  v.  Merchants*  Cotton-Press  & 
R.  Co.,  145  Mass.  132,  13  N.  E.  373,  Storage  Co.,  90  Tenn.  306,  17  S.  W. 
32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  530,  note.  89. 

59.  Hardman  v.  Montana  Union  61.  Davis  v.  Central  Vermont  R. 
By.  Co.,  83  Fed.  88,  27  C.  C.  A.  407,  Co.,  66  Vt.  290,  29  Atl.  313,  45  Am, 
39  L.  R.  A.  300.  Rep.  590. 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 
•ilG 

adjoining  warehouse,  where,  through  negligence  of  the  other  car- 
rier,  the  oil  took  fire,  and  both  warehouses  were  consumed  the 
first  carrier  was  not  liable  for  the  destruction  of  the  goods  stored 
with  it,  under  a  bill  of  lading  exempting  defendant  from  liability 
by  fire,  since  defendant's  negligence  was  not  the  proximate , cause 
of  the  loss.*^ 

62.  McMillan  v.  Michigan  Southern, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Mich.  79,  93  Am.  Dec. 
208. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Limitation  of  Liability. 

Sbotion     1.  Limitation  of  carrier's  liability  generally. 

2.  Operation  and  effect  of  limitation  in  general. 

3.  Limitation  by  public  notice 

4.  Limitation  by  special  contract. 

5.  Special  contract  must  be  express  and  will  not  be  presumed. 

6.  Ckjntract  need  not  be  signed  by  shipper  unless  required  by  statute. 

7.  Where  there  are  two  contracts  limiting  liability. 

8.  Conflict  of  oral  and  written  agreements. 

9.  Contract  must  have  been  fairly  entered  into. 

10.  Necessity  of  consideration. 

11.  Contract  signed  by  shipper  without  examination. 

12.  Contract  must  have  been  made  at  time  of  shipment. 

13.  Contract  must  be  legible  and  intelligible. 

14.  By  what  law  validity  of  contract  is  determined. 

15.  Who  may  make  special  contract. 

16.  Carrier  may  not  limit  its  liability  for  negligence. 

17.  The  New  York  rule. 

18.  Rule  in  Illinois  and  Wisconsin. 

19.  The  English  and  Canadian  rule. 

20.  Reasons  upon  which  the  different  rules  are  based. 

21.  Liabilities  subject  to  limitation. 

22.  Mode  or  form  of  limitation. — Bill  of  lading  or  shipping  receipt. 

23.  Limitation  of  time  in  which  to  bring  suit. 

24.  Requirement   of  notice   of   loss  or   presentation  of   claim  within 

fixed  time. 

25.  To  what  damages  stipulation  does  not  apply. 

26.  Limitation  of  liability  as  ground  for  defense. — Pleading. 

27.  Limitation  of  liability  as  ground  of  defense. — Presumptions    and 

burden  of  proof. 

28.  Stipulation  requiring  claim  to  be  made  before  removal  of  gooda. 

29.  Limitation  of  liability  to  forwarder  or  warehouseman. 

30.  Limitation  of  amount  of  liability. 

31.  Limitation  of  amount  where  value  is  not  disclosed. 

32.  Limitation   of   amount   where   loss   is   caused   by   negligence  or 

wrongful  act  of  carrier. 

33.  Stipulations  that  measure  of  damages  shall  be  invoice  value  or 

market  price  at  place  of  shipment. 

27  f^i7> 


418 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


Section  34.  Constniction  of  special  contracts. 

35.  When  stipulations  of  contract  inoperative. 

36.  Fraudulent  concealment  or  misrepresentation  of  value  by  shipper. 

37.  Carrier's  duty  to  inquire  as  to  value  of  property. 

38.  Shipper's  duty  to  state  value  and  character  of  goods. 

§  1.  Limitation  of  carrier's  liability  generally. 

A  common  carrier  may,  by  a  just  and  reasonable  contract,  limit 
the  extent  of  its  common  law  liability  in  case  of  loss  or  injury. 
This  may  be  done  by  special  or  express  contracts  or  to  a  limited 
extent  by  contracts  implied  from  public  notice.  This  is  almost 
universally  held  to  be  the  rule  by  the  United  States  Courts,  the 
courts  of  England  and  Canada,  and  the  courts  of  the  States,  except 
a  few  States  where  by  constitutional  provision  or  statute  such 
limitation  is  prohibited.  But  the  rule  is  equally  as  well  settled 
and  almost  as  universally  maintained  that  the  carrier  cannot  con- 
tract to  relieve  itself  from  liability  for  loss  or  injury  which  is  the 
result  of  its  o^vn  negligence  or  that  of  its  servants.^ 


1.  U.  S. — New  York  Cent.  R.  Co. 
V.  Lockwood,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.)  357; 
New  Jersey  Steam  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Merchants'  Bank,  6  How.  (U.  S.) 
344;  Bank  of  Kentucky  v.  Adams  Ex- 
press Co.,  93  U.  S.  174;  Muser  v. 
Holland,  17  Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  412; 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.  v.  Stevens,  95 
U.  S.  655;  Ogdensburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Pratt,  22  Wall.   (U.  S.)    123. 

^la. — Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hop- 
kins, 41  Ala.  486,  94  Am.  Dec.  607; 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Crook,  44 
Ala.  468,  4  Am.  Rep.  140;  South, 
etc.,  Alabama  R.  Co.  v.  Henlein,  52 
Ala.  606,  56  Ala.  368;  Grey  v.  Mo- 
bile, etc.,  Trade  Co.,  55  Ala.  387,  28 
Am.  Rep.   729. 

^rlc. — Taylor  v.  Little  Rock,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  32  Ark.  398,  29  Am.  Rep.  1, 
39  Ark.  148,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
690;   Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tal- 


bot, 39  Ark.  523,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  598,  47  Ark.  97. 

Colo. — W^estern  L^nion  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Graham,  1  Colo.  230,  9  Am.  Rep.  136; 
Merchants'  Dispatch,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Corn- 
forth,  3  Colo.  280,  25  Am.  Rep.  757. 

Conn. — Camp  v.  Hartford,  etc., 
Steamboat  Co.,  43  Conn.  333;  Welch 
V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Conn.  333, 
6  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  95;  Hale  v.  New 
Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  15  Conn.  539, 
39  Am.  Dec.  398. 

Ga. —  Southern  Express  Co.  v. 
Barnes,  36  Ga.  532;  Purcell  v.  South- 
ern Express  Co.,  34  Ga.  315. 

III. — Black  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
Ill  111.  351,  53  Am.  Rep.  628,  25  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  388;  Wabash,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Peyton,  106  111.  354,  46  Am. 
Rep.  705,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  1. 

Ind. — Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Holland    (Ind.),  69  N.  E.  138,  63  L. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


419 


§  2.  Operation  and  effect  of  limitation  in  general. 

Freeing  itself  bj  contract  from  its  usual  common-law  duties 
does  not  change  the  true  character  of  a  carrier's  employment,  and 
it  is  a  public  carrier  still.^  Where  a  common  carrier,  accepting 
property  for  transportation,  commits  a  breach  of  its  common-law 
duties,  the  shipper  may  maintain  an  action  in  tort  therefor,  though 
the  carrier  receives  the  property  under  a  special  contract  limiting 
its  liability ;  the  carrier  in  accepting  the  shipment  accepting  it  with 


R.  A.  948;  Bartlett  v.  Pittsburgh, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Ind.  2S1,  18  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  549. 

loica. — McCoy  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  Iowa,  424. 

Kan. — Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Rey- 
nolds, 17  Kans.  251. 

Ky. — Rhodes  v.  Louisvile,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  9  Bush    (Ky.),  688. 

La. — Simon  v.  Steamship  Fung 
Shuey,  21  La.  Ann.  363. 

Me. — Morse  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R, 
Co.,  97  Me.  77,  53  Atl.  874;  Willis  v. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  62  Me.  488. 

Mass. — Buckland  v.  Adams  Express 
Co.,  97  Mass.  124,  93  Am.  Dee.  68. 

Minn. — O'IMalley  v.  Great  Northern 
R.  Co.,  86  Minn.  580,  90  N.  W.  974; 
Jacobus  V.  St.  Paul,  etc..  R.  Co.,  20 
Minn.  125,  18  Am.  Rep.  SCO,  1  Cent. 
L.  J.  375. 

Miss. — Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Weiner,  49  Miss.  725. 

Mo. — Oxley  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   65  Mo.   629. 

Neb. — Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Washburn,  5  Neb.  117. 

N.  F.— Hall  V.  Cheney,  36  N.  H.  f^6. 

N.  J. — Taylor  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  8  N.  J.  L.  J.  149;  Paul  v.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.,  70  N.  J.  Law  442,  57 
Atl.  139;  Ashmore  v.  Pennsylvania 
Steam  Towing,  etc.,  Co.,  28  N.  J.  L. 
180. 


N.  C. — Parker  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  133  N.  C.  335,  63  L.  R.  A.  827, 
45  S  E.  658;  Lee  v.  Raleigh,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  72  NT.  C.  236. 

Ohio. — Pennsylvania  Co.,  v.  Yoder, 
25  Ohio  C.  C.  R.  32;  Erie  R.  Co.  v. 
Lockwood,  28  Ohio  St.  358;  Gaines 
V.  Union  Transp.,  etc.,  Co.,  28  Ohio 
St.,  428,  14  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  158;  Cin- 
cinnati, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Berdan,  22; 
Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  R.  326. 

Pa. — Farnham  v.  Camden,  etc.,  K. 
Co.,  55  Pa.  St.  53. 

^-  C'- — Levy  v.  Southern  Express 
Co.,  4.  S.  C.  234. 

Tewn.— Dillard,  v.  Louisville,  etc,. 
R.  Co.,  2  Lea    (Tenn.),  288. 

Tex. — Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Allison,  59  Tex.  193,  12  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  28. 

'^^t- — Kimball  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  26  Vt.  247,  62  Am.  Dec.  567. 

l'«- — Wilson  V.  Chesapeake,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  21  Gratt.    (Va.)    654. 

W.  Va. — Brown  v.  Adams  Express 
Co.,  15  W.  Va.  812. 

Wis. — Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Go.  v.  Far- 
mers', etc..  Bank,  20  Wis.  122. 

Eng. — Peek  v.  North  StaflFordshire 
R.  Co.,  10  H.  L,  Cas.  473,  32  L.  J.  Q. 
B.  241. 

2.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hol- 
land, 162  Ind.  406,  69  N.  E.  138.  63 
L.  R.  A.  948. 


420  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

the  obligations  imposed  bj  law,  and  the  special  contract  merely 
constituting  a  defense  in  so  far  as  the  exemptions  from  liability 
which  it  creates  are  valid.'  Under  a  contract  of  shipment  pro- 
viding that  no  carrier  is  bound  to  carry  the  property  by  a  par- 
ticular train  or  vessel,  or  otherwise  than  with  as  reasonable  dis- 
patch as  its  general  business  will  permit,  or  shall  be  liable  for  loss 
thereof  by  fire,  the  carrier  is  not  liable,  where  the  fire  destroy- 
ing the  vessel  and  cargo  did  not  arise  from  its  fault,  though  the 
goods  would  not  have  been  destroyed  if  it  had  carried  them  on 
the  night  of  their  arrival;  the  capacity  of  the  vessel  not  being 
sufficient  for  all  the  cargo.*  So,  where  a  bill  of  lading  provided 
that  goods  should  be  delivered  to  successive  carriers,  and  that 
no  carrier  should  be  liable  for  loss  or  damage  after  said  goods 
were  ready  for  delivery  to  the  next  carrier,  and  a  railroad  com- 
pany transported  the  goods  to  a  seaport  with  proper  diligence, 
and  deposited  them  in  the  railroad  company's  warehouse  ready  for 
shipment  when  the  boats  of  the  connecting  carrier  should  arrive, 
the  connecting  carrier  having  no  warehouse  or  dock,  and  while 
the  goods  were  awaiting  transportation,  they  were  destroyed  by 
fire,  not  caused  by  defendant's  negligence,  the  railroad  company 
was  not  liable.^  The  rule  of  law  that  stipulations  varying  or 
limiting  the  liability  of  the  common  carrier  must  be  strictly  con- 
strued against  the  carrier  has  reference  to  the  question  of  the 
extent  of  the  liability  of  the  carrier  during  the  period  in  which 
he  is  acting  in  such  capacity,  and  does  not  have  reference  to  the 
question  of  when  the  liability  of  a  common  carrier  ceases  by  the 
delivery  of  the  property  to  the  consignee.^  Appropriate  language 
being  used  in  a  bill  of  lading,  liquidating,  on  a  value  basis,  recov- 
erable damages  for  the  loss  of  or  injury  to  the  subject  of  carriage 
happening  through  events  described  by  such  language  as  to  rea- 
sonably include  results  of  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  carrier, 

3.  Nelson    v.    Great    Northern    R.  5.  Courteen  v.  Kanawha  Dispatch, 
Co.,  28  Mont.  297,  72  Pac.  642.  110  Wis.  610,  86  N.  W.  176. 

4.  The    Nutmeg    State,    103    Fed.  6.  Paddock  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
797.  21  Ohio  C.  C.  R.  626,  11  0.  C.  D.  789. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


421 


and  also  appropriate  language  exempting  the  carrier  from  liability 
in  consideration  of  a  special  freight  rate  or  other  valuable  con- 
sideration, for  loss  of  or  damage  to  such  subject,  by  events  not 
necessarily  attributable  to  the  carrier's  negligence,  the  reasonable 
construction  is  that  the  limitation  of  liability  on  a  value  basis 
refers  to  loss  by  negligence,  and  that  the  entire  exemption  from 
liability  refers  to  damages  caused  by  such  mere  accidents  as  the 
carrier  would  be  liable  for,  and  that  neither  refers  to  occurrences 
for  which  there  would  be  no  liability  whaterer,  nor  to  damages, 
caused  by  willful  misfeasance.^  Contracts  or  agreements  or  bills 
of  lading  creating  special  limitation  of  the  liability  of  a  carrier 
or  which  tend  to  limit  its  common-law  liability  for  its  own  de- 
faults should  be  strictly  construed  against  the  carrier,  even  when 
valid,*  and  the  same  rule  applies  as  to  a  release  against  accrued 


7.  Ullman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
112  Wis.  168,  88  N.  W.  41,  88  Am. 
St.  Rep.  949.  The  words  "  in  case  of 
accident "  being  used  in  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing, referring  to  events  involving 
damage  to  the  subject  of  carriage  for 
which  the  carrier  would  be  liable,  and 
later  in  the  contract  the  words  "  neg- 
ligence aforesaid "  being  used  in  re- 
gard to  the  producing  cause  of  in- 
juries to  the  subject  of  carriage, 
without  any  precedent  language  other 
than  the  words  "in  case  of  accident" 
to  which  such  words  can  reasonably 
refer,  leaving  su?h  latter  expression 
without  significance  except  by  refer- 
ence to  the  former  expression,  such 
latter  expression  should  be  taken  as 
pointing  to  the  former  under  the  rule 
for  judicial  construction  that  every 
word  or  expression  in  a  contract 
should  be  given  some  significance  if 
that  can  reasonably  be  done.    Id. 

g.  A-la.—St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v. 
Cavender,   170  Ala.   601,   54   So.  54; 


Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  A,  F.  Mer- 
rill &  Co.,  153  Ala.  277,  45  So.  628, 
holding  also  that  the  word  "  carrier  " 
in  a  bill  of  lading  should  be  taken  as 
referring  not  merely  to  the  transpor- 
tative  capacity  of  the  company,  but 
to  the  contracting  entity  in  its  dual 
capacity  of  common  carrier  and 
warehouseman. 

Colo. — Estes  V.  Denver  &  R.  G.  R. 
Co.,  49  Colo.  378,  113  Pac.  1005. 

N.  T. —  Hoye  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  191  N.  Y.  101,  83  N.  E.  586,  affg. 
judg.  100  N.  Y.  Supp.  190,  1121; 
Carleton  v.  Union  Trans.,  etc.,  Co., 
121  N.  Y.  Supp.  997,  137  App.  Div. 
225,  aff'g  judg.  117  N.  Y.  Supp. 
1021,  164  Misc.  Rep.  51;  Galloway  v. 
Erie  R.  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  Supp.  25,  116 
App.  DiT.  777,  provisions,  where 
equivocal,  are  to  be  construed  against 
the  carrier. 

8.  C. — Gilliland  &  GaflFney  r. 
Southern  Ry.  Co.,  85  S.  C.  26,  67  S.  E. 
20. 


^•2-2  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

damages.'  The  mere  fact  of  tlie  destruction  of  property  by  a  flood 
will  not  justify  a  railroad  company  to  which  the  property  has  been 
intrusted,  in  failing  to  exercise  reasonable  care  and  diligence  in 
order  to  save  it  from  injury,  although  the  bill  of  lading  under 
which  the  property  was  shipped  provided  that  the  carrier  should 
not  be  liable  for  any  loss  caused  by  floods;  and  this  duty  is  a 
continuing  one  as  long  as  the  loss  is  voidable,  and  this,  inde- 
pendent of  the  notice  to  be  given  to  the  consignee  of  the  arrival 
of  the  f  reiglit.^^  A  clause  in  a  bill  of  lading  exempting  the  carrier 
from  liability  for  loss  or  damage  caused  by  flre  does  not  relieve  it 
from  liability  for  negligence."  A  clause  in  a  bill  of  lading,  pro- 
viding that  no  carrier  or  party  in  possession  of  all  or  any  of  the 
property  shall  be  liable  for  any  loss  thereof  or  damage  thereto  by 
fire,  was  applicable  only  in  case  the  carrier  at  the  time  of  the  fire 
which  destroyed  the  goods  was  "  in  possession  "  thereof. ^^  Where 
the  bill  of  lading  under  which  a  car  of  lumber  was  shipped  re- 
lieved the  carrier  from  liability  for  damage  by  fire  unless  result- 
ing directly  from  the  carrier's  negligence,  and  the  carrier,  before 
moving  the  car,  allowed  it  to  remain  for  two  days  on  a  side  track 
near  a  sawmill,  and  the  lumber  was  destroyed  by  fire  originating 
in  the  mill,  the  carrier  was  liable  for  the  loss.'^^  A  clause  in  a 
bill  of  lading,  exempting  the  carrier  from  liability  for  loss  "  by 
floods  or  by  fire,"  limits  liability  to  negligence.^*  Where  several 
receipts  containing  limitations  of  the  carrier's  liability  were  given 
for  property  consigned,  each  receipt  constituted  a  special  contract 
for  the  transportation  of  the  property  named  therein,  so  that  a 
limitation  of  liability  in  a  receipt  only  applied  to  the  property 
described  therein.^^    The  term  "  released,"  as  a  legal  phrase,  and 

9.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Ca-  13.  Arkansas    Southern    R.    Co.    v. 
vender,  supra.                                                 Murphy,  83  Ark.  562,  103  S.  W.  743. 

10.  Cunningham     v.     Pennsylvania  14.  Burke  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  119  N.  Y. 
R.  Co.,  50  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  609.  Supp.  309,  134  App.  Div.  413. 

11.  Bobbink  y.  i^rie  R.  Co.,  82  N.  J.  15.  Rappaport   v.    White's    Express 
Law  547,  82  Atl.  877.  Co.,   131   N.  Y.  Supp.   131,   146  App. 

12.  BoUes  V.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  Div.  576. 
159   Fed.  694,  86  C.  C.  A.   562. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  423 

when  used  in  reference  to  a  shipment  by  a  carrier,  means  that  the 
carrier  is  relieved  from  losses  not  occasioned  by  its  negligence.^^ 
The  acceptance  of  a  bill  of  lading,  stipulating  that  no  carrier  or 
party  in  possession  of  property  should  be  liable  for  loss  or  damage 
by  causes  beyond  its  control  or  by  flood  or  fire,  relieved  the  carrier 
from  an  insurer's  liability,  with  familiar  exceptions,  and  limited 
liability  to  loss  or  damage  by  negligence  of  the  carrier.^'^  Clauses 
in  a  bill  of  lading,  exempting  the  carrier  from  liability  for  delay 
in  transportation  arising  from  specified  causes,  did  not  relieve 
it,  when  delay  occurred,  from  the  obligation  which  it  assumed  to 
re-ice  a  refrigerator  car  from  point  of  shipment  to  destination.^ 
The  provisions  of  a  bill  of  lading  limiting  the  carrier's  common- 
law  liability  will  not  be  considered  conditions  precedent  to  a  right 
to  recover,  unless  it  clearly  appears  that  such  was  the  intent,  or 
it  is  so  specifically  stated.^*  Deviation  by  a  carrier  from  the  route 
described  in  the  contract  of  shipment  makes  him  liable  as  an  in- 
surer of  the  goods  shipped,  though  the  contract  of  shipment 
exempts  him  from  liability  under  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  goods  were  actually  injured.^°  A  shipping  contract  stipulating 
that  in  consideration  of  a  reduced  rate  the  shipper  releases  the 
carrier  for  breach  of  any  contract  to  furnish  cars  at  any  particular 
time  releases  a  claim  for  damages  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  at 
a  time  agreed  upon,  which  damages  had  accrued  when  the  contract 
was  signed.^^  The  exemptions  and  restrictions  stipulated  for  in 
a  contract  of  carriage  do  not  relieve  the  carrier  from  liability  for 
the  consequences  of  its  own  negligence.^^  A  carrier  is  liable  for 
a  loss  occasioned  by  ordinary  negligence,  notwithstanding  a  waiver 

16.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Butler      191   N.  Y.    101,   83   N.  E.   586,  aff'g 
Marble  &  Granite  Co.,  8  Ga.  App.  1,      jud?.  100  N.  Y.  Supp.  190,  1121. 

68  S.  E.  775.  20.  McKahan  v.  American  Express 

17.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Bur-  Co..,  209  Mass.  270,  95  N.  E.  785. 
ton,  165  Ala.  425,  51  So.  643.  21.   Freeman  v.   St.   Louis  &   S.   F. 

18.  Geraty   v.   Atlantic   Coast   Line  R.  Co.,  138  Mo.  App.  322,  122  S.  W. 
R.  Co.,  81  S.  C.  367,  62  S.  E.  444.  1. 

19.  Hoye   v.   Pennsylvania   R.    Co.,  22.  Hahn  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

141  Mo.  App.  453,  125  S.  W.  1185. 


42^ 


THE  LAW  OF  CAERlEKtS. 


in  a  bill  of  lading  purporting  to  exempt  it  from  liability."^  A 
contract  between  a  railway  company  and  a  construction  company 
for  reduced  rate  for  transportation  of  camp  outfit  and  supplies 
required  in  grading  an  extension  was  held  to  exempt  the  railroad 
from  all  liability  for  loss  during  the  transportation  whether  at- 
tributable to  its  negligence  or  not.^*  It  is  only  when  the  contract 
is  repudiated  by  the  carrier  that  the  limitation  as  to  the  value  of 
the  goods  is  abrogated.^^  Where  a  shipper  had  bulk  corn,  which 
was  shipped  in  a  stock  car,  sacked  en  route  without  removing  it 
from  the  car,  and  redelivered  it  for  transportation  under  a  bill  of 
lading  providing  that  damage  on  account  of  being  loaded  in  a 
stock  car  was  at  the  owner's  risk,  the  carrier  was  not  liable  for 
damages  to  the  corn  by  it  being  loaded  in  the  stock  car.^®  Proof 
that  brine  had  run  off  fish  shipped  in  barrels,  and  that  the  barrels 
during  transportation  had  been  pimctured,  and  that  the  fish  were 
injured  thereby,  did  not  prove  a  leakage  within  the  bill  of  lading, 
relieving  the  carrier  from  liability  for  damages  caused  by 
leakage.^^ 

§  3.  Limitation  by  public  notice. 

The  authorities  generally  hold  that  a  common  carrier  can  only 
restrict  or  limit  its  common  law  liability  and  dipcliarge  itself  from 
duties  which  the  law  has  annexed  to  its  employment  by  express 
contract,  and  not  by  a  general  notice,  although  brought  home  to 
the  owner  of  the  goods.^^    But  the  carrier  may  by  a  general  notice 

23.  National    Rice    Milling    Co.    ▼.  v.   Merchants'  Despatch  Transp.  Co., 
New  Orleans  &  N.  E.  R.  Co.,  132  La.  143  Mo.  App.  42,  122  S.  W.  362. 
615,  61  So.  708.  28.  Hollister  v.  Nowlen.  19  Wend. 

24.  Santa  Fe,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grant  (N.  Y.)  234;  Cole  v.  Goodwin,  19 
Bros.  Const.  Co.,  228  U.  S.  177,  33  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  251;  Clerk  v.  Fax- 
Sup.  Ct.  474,  57  L,  Ed.  1.  ton,  21  Wend.   (N.  Y.)    153;   Dorr  v. 

25.  Coleman  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  11  N. 
Co.,  Mass.  — ,  102  N.  E.  92.  Y.  485,  4  Sand.    (N.  Y.)    136;   Fibel 

26.  Nicholson  v.  St,  Louis  &  S.  F.  v.  Livingston,  64  Barb,  (N.  Y.)  179; 
R.  Co.,  141  Mo.  App.  199,  124  S.  W.  Freeman  v.  Newton,  3  E.  D.  Sm.  (N. 
573.  Y. )   246;  Judson  v.  Western  R.  Corp. 

27.  A.  C.  L.  Haase  &  Sons  Fish  Co.,  6   Allen    (Mass.),   486,   490,    93   Am. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


425 


publicly  posted,  but  not  shown  to  have  been  brought  to  the  ship- 
per's attention  betore  shipment,  require  all  shippers  to  state  the 
true  nature  or  value  of  the  property  shipped,  with  a  view  to  the 
amount  of  compensation  for  the  services  and  risk,  or  else  the 
carrrier  will  be  absolved  from  the  consequences  of  a  loss,  not 
occasioned  by  negligence  or  misconduct,  beyond  the  apparent  value 
of  such  property.^  It  is  the  generally  accepted  doctrine  that  the 
carrier  may  limit  its  liability  by  public  notice  of  a  reasonable  rule 
or  regulation  as  to  the  manner  of  entry  or  consignment  of  goods, 
the  statement  of  their  value  and  character,  and  as  to  its  own 
charges.^"  Such  a  rule  or  regulation  in  respect  to  duties  designed 
simply  to  insure  good  faith  and  fair  dealing  is  held  to  be  one  of 
which  the  shipper  must  inform  himself  if  reasonable  opportunity 
therefor  be  given  him,  and  he  will  be  bound  by  it  whether  it  is 
specifically  brought  to  his  attention  or  not.  A  general  notice 
publicly  posted  is  sufficient  to  discharge  the  carrier.^^     In  New 


Dec.  646;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Frankensburg,  54  111.  88;  Davidson 
V.  Graham,  2  Ohio  St.  131;  Brown 
V.  Adams  Express  Co.,  15  W.  Va. 
812;  McMillan  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  6  Mich.  79,  111;  Gott  v.  Dins- 
more,  111  Mass.  45;  Fillebrown  v. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  55  Me.  462,  92 
Am.  Rep.  606. 

29.  McMillan  v.  Michigan  South- 
ern, etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Mich.  79,  93  Am. 
Dec.  208;  Wtestern  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Newhall,  24  111.  466,  76  Am.  Dec. 
760;  Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Cham- 
plain  Transp.  Co.,  16  Vt.  52,  18  Vt. 
131,  23  Vt.  186,  56  Am.  Dec.  68; 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Stettaners, 
61  111.  184,  14  Am.  Rep.  57;  Oppen- 
heimer  v.  United  States  Express  Co., 
69  HI.  62,  18  Am.  Rep.  596;  South- 
ern Express  Co.  v.  Newby,  36  Ga. 
635,  91  Am.  Dec.  783. 

30.  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co.  v. 
Merchants'    Bank,    6    How.    (U.    S.) 


344;  Hopkins  v.  Westcott,  6  Blatchf, 
(U.  S.)  64;  Lawrence  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Conn.  63;  Kallman  v. 
United  States  Express  Co.,  3  Kan. 
205;  Brehme  v.  Dinsmore,  25  Md. 
328;  Judson  v.  Western  R.  Corp.,  6 
Allen  (Mass.),  486,  83  Am.  Dec.  646; 
McMillan  v.  Michigan  Southern,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  16  Mich.  79,  93  Am.  Dec.  208; 
Snider  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  63  Mo. 
376;  Ketchum  v.  American  M.  U. 
Express  Co.,  52  Mo.  390;  Moses  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  H.  71,  55 
Am.  Dec.  222;  Fibel  v.  Livingston,  64 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  179;  Farmer's,  etc., 
Bank  v.  Champlain  Transp.  Co.,  23 
Vt.  186,  56  Am.  Dec.  68;  Boorman 
V.  American  Express  Co.,  21  Wis. 
152. 

31.  Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  84  111. 
239,  25  Am.  Rep.  451,  16  Am.  Ry. 
Rep.  457;  Oppenheimer  v.  United 
States  Express  Co.,  69  111.  62,  18  Am. 
Rep.  596. 


426 


THE  LAW  OF  CAREIERS. 


York,  however,  the  rule  is  that  mere  public  notice  will  not  operate 
as  a  limitation  of  the  carrier's  liability  unless  brought  home  to 
the  owner  of  the  goods.^^  But  except  for  the  establishment  of 
such  rules  or  regulations  to  insure  regularity  and  promptness  and 
properly  inform  the  carrier  of  the  responsibility  he  assumes,  the 
force  of  a  mere  notice  cannot  extend,  and  the  general  doctrine 
maintained  by  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  in  Eng- 
land and  Canada,  is  that  a  carrier  cannot  limit  its  liability  by  any 
public  notice  unless  such  notice  is  shown  to  have  been  brought  to 
the  knowledge  or  attention  of  the  shipper  within  a  reasonable 
time  before  shipment  and  to  have  been  expressly  assented  to  by 
him,  or  his  asent.^^     There  are  cases  in  some  of  the  States,  how- 


The  language  of  the  publication 
must  be  plain,  explicit  and  unambig- 
uous, if  the  carrier  relies  on  a  mere 
notice  or  advertisement  as  a  limita- 
tion of  its  liability.  Beckman  v. 
Shouse,  5  Rawle  (Pa.),  179,  28  Am. 
Dec.  653;  Barney  v.  Prentiss,  4  Har- 
&  J.  (Md.)   317,  7  Am.  Dec.  670. 

32.  Hollister  v.  Nowlen,  19  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  234,  32  Am.  Dec.  455;  Cole 
V.  Goodwin,  19  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  251, 
32  Am.  Dec.  470. 

33.  See  cases  cited  note  32,  supra. 
N.    Y. — Springer    v.    We^tcott,    166 

N.  Y.  117,  59  N.  E.  693;  Rawson  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  48  N.  Y.  212,  8 
Am.  Rep.  543;  Blossom  v.  Dodd,  43 
N.  Y.  264,  3  Am.  Rep.  701;  Camden 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Belknap,  21  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)  354;  Zimmer  v.  New  York  Cent., 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  N.  Y.  462;  Gross- 
man V.  Dodd,  63  Hun  (N.  Y.),  334, 
aflfd.  137  N.  Y.  599;  Madan  v. 
Sherard,  73  N.  Y.  329,  29  Am.  Rep. 
153;  Reed  v.  Fargo,  7  N.  Y.  Supp. 
185. 

Where  an  express  company  gave 
plaintiff  a  receipt  for  a  trunk  check 
which  contained  a  provision  limiting 


the  company  s  liability,  plaintiff  was 
not  bound  thereby,  when  she  had  no 
knowledge  of  tlie  contents  of  the 
paper,  and  there  was  no  showing  that 
it  was  proffered  as  a  contract,  or  tha^t 
plaintiff  accepted  it  as  anything 
more  than  a  means  to  identify  her 
property.  Walker  v.  Piatt,  34  Misc. 
Rep.  (N.  Y.)  799,  69  N.  Y.  Supp. 
943. 

U.  S. — New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co. 
v.  Merchants'  Bank,  6  How.  (U.  S.) 
344;  Ormsby  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  4 
Fed.  706,  2  McCrary  (U.  S.),  48; 
Michigan  Cent.  R.  Oo.  v.  Mineral 
Springs  Mfg.  Co.,  16  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
318;  Ayres  v.  Western  R.  Corp.,  14 
Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  9;  The  Brig  May 
Queen,  1  Newb.  Adm.  465;  The  Pa- 
cific, Deady    (U    S.),  17. 

Ala. — Southern  Express  Co.  V 
Armstead,  50  Ala.  350;  Southern 
Express  Co.  v.  Crook,  44  Ala.  468; 
4  Am.  Rep.  140;  Southern  Express 
Co.  V.  Caperton,  44  Ala.  101,  4  Am. 
Rep.  118;  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jar- 
boe,  41  Ala.  644;  Steele  v.  Town- 
send,  37  Ala.  247,  79  Am.  Dec.  49. 

Conn. — Peck    v.    Weeks,    34    Conn. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


427 


ever,  which  hold  that  while  a  general  or  published  notice  is  in- 
sufficient for  a  contract  limiting  liability  to  be  implied  therefrom, 


145;  Derwot  v.  Loomler,  21  Oonn. 
345;  Hale  v.  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav. 
Co.,  15  Conn.  539,  39  Am.  Dec.  398. 
See  Coupland  v.  Housatonic  R.  Co., 
61  Conn.  531,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
380. 

Gch — Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Gann,  68 
Ga.  350.  A  common  carrier  of  goods 
cannot  limit  his  legal  liability  as  an 
insurer,  except  by  an  express  con- 
tract entered  into  by  both  parties. 
Central  of  Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Lipp- 
man,  110  Ga.  665,  36  S.  E.  202. 

III. — Oppenheimer  v.  United  States 
Express  Co.,  69  III.  62,  18  Am.  Rep. 
596;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Frank- 
enberg,  54  lU.  88,  5  Am.  Rep.  93; 
Western  Transp.  Co.  v.  Newhall,  24 
111.,  466,  76  Am.  Dec.  760;  Chicago 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Harmon,.  12  111.  M'P- 
54.     There  must  be  clear  proof  that 

the  shipper  expressly  assented  to 
limitations  on  the  carrier's  liability 
contained  in  its  contract,  or  the 
shipper,  notwithstanding  notice  of 
such  intended  limitation,  may  insist 
that  the  carrier  shall  transport  his 
goods  incident  to  the  common-law 
employmient.  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Bratton,   106   111.   App.   563. 

Ind. — Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Cox,  39  Ind.  360,  95  Am.  Dec.  640; 
EvanavilLe,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  28 
Ind.  516. 

La. — New  Orleans  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v. 
New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  La. 
Ann.  302;  Roberts  v.  Riley,  15  La. 
Ann,  103,  77  Am.  Dec.  183;  Tx)gan  v. 
Pontchartrain  R.  Co.,  11  Rob.  (La.) 
34,  43  Am.  Dec.  199;  Baldwin  v.  Col- 
lins, 9  Rob.    (La.)    468. 


Md. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Brady,  32  Md.  333. 

Mass. — Buckland  v.  Adams  Ex. 
press  Co.,  97  Mass.  131,  93  Am.  Dec. 
68;  Judson  v.  Western  R.  Corp.,  6 
Allen    (Mass.)    490. 

Mich.  —  McMillan  v.  Michigan 
Southern,  etc.,,  R.  Co.,  16  Mich.  79, 
93  Am.  208;  American  Transp.  Co. 
V.  Moore,  5  Mich.  368. 

Miss. — Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v  Wei- 
ner,   49   Miss.   725. 

jVeft.— Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Miller,  16  Neb.  661,  18  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.    Cas.    545. 

N.  G. — Gardner  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,   127  N.  C.  293,  37  N.  E.  328. 

A'^.  H. — Moses  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  34  N.  H.  71,  55  Am.  Dec.  323; 
Bennett  v.  Dutton,  10  N.  H.  481. 

N.  J.— Gibbons  v.  Wade,  8  N.  J. 
L.  355. 

Ohio. — ^Mack  v.  Great  Western  De- 
spatch, 3  0.  C.  D.  33,  the  acceptance 
of  dray  tickets  did  not  constitute  an 
assent  to  their  terms;  Gaines  v. 
Union  Transp.,  etc.,  Co.,  38  Ohio  St. 
418;  Jones  v.  Voorhees,  10  Ohio  145; 
Davidson  v.  Graham,  3  Ohio  St.  131; 
Union  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Indianapolis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Disney    (Ohio)    480. 

8.  C. — Levy  v.  Southern  Express 
Co.,  4  S.  C.  234. 

Tenn. — Walker  v.  Skipwith,  Meigs 
(Tenn.)    503,  33  Am.  Dec.  161. 

Vt. — ^Winchell  v.  National  Ex- 
presis  Co.,  64  Vt.  15;  Mann  v.  Bir- 
chard,  40  Vt.  336;  Blumenthal  v. 
Brainard,  38  Vt.  403,  91  Am.  Dec. 
350;  Kimball  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
36  Vt.  347,  62  Am.  Dec.  567;   Farm- 


428 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


yet  when  the  notice  is  not  unreasonable,  and  is  clear  and  explicit, 
and  is  brought  home  to  the  shipper,  or  the  course  of  business  is  well 
understood  and  has  been  often  acted  upon  without  question,  the 
limitation  which  it  imposes  may  be  binding  upon  the  shipper.^* 

§  4.  Limitation  by  special  contract. 

In  the  earlier  cases  in  New  York  it  was  held  that  a  common 
carrier  could  not,  even  by  express  contract,  restrict  its  conmion  law 


ers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Champlain  Transp. 
Co.,  18  Vt.  131,  23  Vt.  186,  56  Am. 
Dec.   68. 

yy^  Yd. — Brown  v.  Adams  Express 
•Co.,  15  W.  Va.  812. 

Eng.—Veck  v.  North  Staffordshire 
R.  Co.,  10  H.  L.  Cas.  473,  33  L.  J. 
Q.  B.  241;  Doolan  v.  Midland  R.  Co., 
L.  R.  2  App.  792,  25  W.  K.  883; 
Cohen  v.  South  Eastern  R.  Co.,  2 
Exeh.  Div.  253,  46  L.  J.  Exch.  Div. 
417. 

Con.— Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.  v. 
Vogel,  11  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  612,  27  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  18;  Fitzgerald  v. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  4  Ont.  App. 
601,  5  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  209. 

34.  Bingham  v.  Rogers,  6  W.  & 
S.  (Pa.)  495,  50  Am.  Dec.  581;  Beck- 
man  V.  Shouse,  5  Rawle  (Pa.)  179, 
28  Am.  Dec.  653.  These  decisions 
have  been  questioned  in  later  cases. 
In  Laing  v.  Colder,  8  Pa.  St.  479,  49 
Am.  Dec.  533,  the  court  says:  "The 
expediency  of  recognizing  in  the  car- 
rier a  right  to  do  so  by  a  general 
notice  has  been  strongly  and  justly 
questioned,  and  in  some  of  our  sister 
states  altogether  denied.  Were  the 
question  an  open  on«  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, I  should,  for  one,  unhesitat- 
ingly follow  them  in  repudiating  a 
principle  which  places  the  bailor  ab- 
solutely at  the  mercy  of  the  carrier, 


whom  in  a  vast  majority  of  instances, 
he  cannot  but  choose  to  -employ." 
See  also  Farnham  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  55  Pa.  St.  i53;  Pennsylvania 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Schwarzenberger,  45 
Pa.  St.  208,  84  Am.  Dec.  490;  Ver- 
ner  v.  Schweitzer,  32  Pa.  St.  208; 
Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baldauf,  16 
Pa.  St.  67,  55  Am.  Dec.  481. 

In  Maine  the  rule  is  that  notice 
brought  hom«  to  the  owner  of  the 
goods,  at  or  before  the  time  of  de- 
livery for  shipment,  if  either  ex- 
pressly or  impliedly  assented  to  by 
the  owner,  will  restrict  the  carrier's 
liability.  Little  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  66  Me.  239 ;  Sager  v.  Portsmouth, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Me.  228,  50  Am.  Dec. 
659;  Fillebrown  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
Co.,  55  Me.  462,  92  Am.  Dec.   606. 

In  North  Carolina  it  is  held  that 
common  carriers  may,  by  notice 
brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
owner,  reasonably  qualify  their  lia- 
bility in  certain  cases,  as,  if  the  no- 
tice be  that  they  will  not  be  liable 
for  glass  in  a  box,  or  articles  of  un- 
usual value,  unless  informed  of  the 
facts.  Smith  v.  North  Carolina  R. 
Co.,  64  N.  C.  235. 

In  Kentucky  it  has  been  held 
"  that  public  notice  given  by  the  car- 
rier and  brought  home  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  shipper,  enters  into  the 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  429 

liability.^  But  these  cases  were  modified  by  later  authorities  and 
the  courts  determined  that  a  carrier  may  limit  its  responsibility 
by  an  express  agreement  with  the  owner,  in  the  form  of  a  special 
acceptance  of  the  goods  to  be  transported.^®  The  courts  in  Eng- 
land and  America,  both  State  and  Federal,  now  generally  maintain 
the  rule  that  a  carrier  may,  by  special  contract  not  unreasonable 
between  himself  and  the  shipper  or  passenger,  limit  its  common 
law  liability."  It  is  usual  for  the  consignor,  on  delivery  of  goods 
for  transportation  to  a  carrier,  to  receive  a  bill  of  lading,  express- 
ing the  terms  and  conditions  upon  which  the  merchandise  is  to 
be  carried.  He  is  presumed  to  assent  to  its  conditions  because 
he  receives  it  under  circumstances  which,  by  the  ordinary  usages 
of  business,  would  naturally  lead  him  to  infer  that  the  document 
he  receives,  which  is  his  muniment  of  title,  quasi  negotiable  and 
upon  the  faith  of  which  he  may  borrow  money,  is  a  contract  and 
not  a  mere  receipt.^^  The  rule  is,  therefore,  generally  recognized 
in  the  United  States  that  the  acceptance  by  the  shipper  or  his 
agent  of  a  receipt  or  bill  of  lading  signed  by  the  carrier  expressing 
the  terms  and  conditions  upon  which  the  goods  are  received,  and 
are  to  be  carried,  and  containing  a  limitation  of  the  carrier's  lia- 
bility, constitutes  in  the  absence  of  fraud  or  imposition,  where 
the  limitation  is  not  illegal  or  unreasonable,  a  contract  controlling 

contract   of   affreightment   so   far  as  Co.,   11  N.  Y.  485;    Parsons  v.  Mon- 

the    carrier    has    a    right   to    impose  teath,  13  Barb.    (N.  Y.)    353;   Moore 

terms,   either   by   express   or   implied  v.  Evans,  14  Barb.   (N.  Y.)   524,  over- 

oontraot,   unless   the   notice   is   incon-  ruling  Gould  v.  Hill,  2  Hill    (N.  Y.) 

siatent  with  the  terms  of  the  express  623 ;    Fibel    v.    Livingston,    64    Barb, 

contract."      Orndorff    v.    Adams    Ex-  (N.   Y.)    179;    Mercantile  Mut.   Ins., 

press  Co.,  3  Bush,  (Ky.),  194,  96  Am.  Co.  v.   Chase,   1   E.  D.   Sm.    (N.   Y.) 

Dec.   207.      See   also  Adams   Express  115. 

Co.   V.  Nock,   2   DuT.    (Ky.)    562,   87  37.  Erie  R.   Co.  v.   Wilcox,   84  III. 

Am.  Dec.  510.  239,   25   Am.   Rep,   451,    16   Am.   Ry. 

35.  Cole  V.  Goodwin,  19  Wend.  Rep.  457;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
(N.  Y)  251,  32  Am.  Dec.  470;  Gould  Schwartz,  13  111.  App.  490;  Thaver  v. 
V.  Hill,  2  Hill  (N.  Y.),  623;  Hollis-  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Ind.  26,  85* 
ter  V.  Nowlen,  19  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  234,  Am.  Dec.  409;  Camp  v.  Hartford,  etc., 
32  Am.  Dec.  455.  Steamboat  Co.,  43   Conn.   333;    Feiga 

36.  Dorr  v.  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  62  Mich.  1- 


430 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


the  rights  uf  the  parties.^  The  rule  is  maintained  even  though 
it  he  shown  that  the  consignor  did  not  read  the  bill  of  lading,  since 
it  was  his  duty  to  do  so/'^    It  is  not  essential  to  the  validity  of  such 


Michigan  Ct-nt.  R.  Co.  v.  Hale,  6 
Mich.  243;  Potts  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  17  Mo.  App.  394;  Bingham  v. 
Rogers,  6  W.  &  S.  (Pa.)  405,  40  Am. 
Dee.  581;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Payne,  86  Va.  481,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  366;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v. 
Batlibone,  1  W.  Va.  87,  88  Am.  Dec. 
664;  Zonch  v.  Cliesapeake,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  36  W.  Va.  534,  19  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  711;  Fitzerald  v.  Grand 
Trunk  R.  Co.,  4  Ont.  App.  601,  28 
U.  C.  C.  P.  586;  Southoote's  Case,  4 
Coke  84;  Morse  v.  Slue,  1  Vent.  238; 
Nicholson  v.  Willan,  5  East  507; 
Smith  V.  Horn,  8  Taunt.  144,  4  E.  C. 
L.  5G;  Anon  v.  Jackson,  2  Peake  N. 
P.    185. 

38.  Long  V.  New  York  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  50  N.  Y.  76;  Huntington  v. 
Dinsmore,  4  Hun  (N.  Y.)  66,  6  T.  & 
C.  (N.  Y.)  195;  Grace  v.  Adams,  100 
Mass.  505;  Snider  v.  Adams  Express 
Co.,  63  Mo.  376;  Brehme  v.  Adams 
Express  Co.,  25  Md.  328;  M'cMahon 
V.  Macy,  51  N.  Y.  155;  Farnham  v. 
Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Pa.  St.  53; 
American  Express  Co.  v.  Second 
National  Bank,  69  Pa.  St.  394;  Lo- 
gan V.  Mobile  Trade  Co.,  46  Ala.  514. 

39.  TJ.  /ST.— Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co. 
V.  Mineral  Springs  Mfg.  Co.,  16  Wall. 

(U.  S.)    329. 

]V.  Y. — ^Kirkland  v.  Dinsmore,  63 
N.  Y.  171,  20  Am.  Rep.  475;  Belger 
V.  Dinsmore,  51  N.  Y.  166,  10  Am. 
Rep.   575. 

Ark. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Weakly,  50  Ark.  397,  35  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  635,  7  Am.  St.  Rep.  104. 


Ind. — Adams  Express  Oo.  v,  Carna- 
han  (Ind.  App.),  63  N.  E.  245,  64  N. 
E.    647, 

Kan. — Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dill, 
48  Kan.  210,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R,  Gas, 
378. 

Ky. — Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Nock, 
2  Duv.    (Ky.)    563,  87  Am.  Dec.  510. 

Mass. — Grace  v.  Adams,  100  Mass. 
505,  97  Am.  Dec.  117,  1  Am.  Rep 
131. 

Miss. — Southern  Express  Co.  v. 
Moon,  39  Miss.  832. 

Mo. — Levering  v.  Union  Transp., 
etc.,  Co.,  42  Mo.  88,  97  Am.  Dae.  320, 

N.  H. — Merrill  v.  American  Ex- 
press Co.,   62  N.  H.   514. 

R.  /.— Ballou  V.  Earle,  17  R.  I. 
441,  33  Am.  St.  Rep.  881,  48  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  31. 

Tenn. — East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
V.  Brumley,  5  Lea  (Tenn.)  401;  Dil- 
lard  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 
Lea    (Tenn.)    288. 

Vt. — Davis  V.  Central  Vermont  R. 
Co.,  68  Vt.  290,  44  Am.  St.  Rep.  852, 
61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  197.  Compare 
Blumenthal  v.  Brainard,  38  Vt.  402, 
91  Am.  Dec.  350. 

Wis. — Proof  that  shipper  took  a 
receipt  containing  provisions  restrict 
ing  the  carrier's  liability  is  prima 
facie  evidence  of  his  assent  to  them. 
IMorrison  v.  Phillips,  etc.,  Oonstr.  Co., 
44  Wis.  405,  28  Am.  Rep.  599,  19  Am. 
Rep.  312;  Boorman  v.  American  Ex- 
press Co.,  21  Wis.  154;  Strohn  v. 
Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Wis.  554,  94 
Am.  Dec.  554. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


431 


a  limitation  tliat  it  be  shown  that  the  shipper  was  aware  of  it,  or 
that  it  had  been  explained  to  him,  or  that  his  attention  had  been 
called  to  it,  or  that  it  was  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  shipper 
himself  where  his  agent  assented  to  the  stipulation,  provided  the 
carrier  has  used  no  deception  or  improper  means  to  prevent  the 
shipper  or  his  agent  from  noticing  or  objecting  to  the  provision 
limiting  liability/^  In  the  absence  of  fraud,  concealment,  or 
improper  practice,  the  legal  presumption  is  that  stipulations  limit- 
ing the  common  law  liability  of  common  carriers,  contained  in  a 
receipt  or  bill  of  lading  given  to  a  shipper  or  passenger,  are  known 
to  the  party  receiving  it,  and  that  he  has  read  and  assented  to 


40.  Grace  v.  Adams,  100  Iklass. 
505;  Snider  v.  Adams  Express  Co., 
63  Mo.  376;  Mulligan  v.  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  36  Iowa  181;  American  M.  U. 
Express  Co.  v.  Schier,  55  III.  140,  the 
question  whether  the  shipper  assent- 
ed to  the  restrictions  and  conditions 
in  an  inland  bill  of  lading  is  one  of 
fact  for  the  jury.  See  also  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v,  Jonte,  13  Brad.  (111. 
App.)    424. 

41.  A'.  Y. — Zimmer  v.  New  York 
Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  N.  Y.  460; 
Hill  V.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  N. 
Y.  351,  29  Am.  Rep.  163:  Germania 
F.  Ins.  Co.  V.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
72  N.  Y.  90,  28  Am.  Rep.  113;  Kirk- 
land  V.  Dinsmore,  62  N.  Y.  171,  20 
Am.  Rep.  475.  See  also  Fowler  V. 
Liverpool,  etc..  Steam  Co..  87  N.  Y. 
190,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R,  Cas.  235;  Coffin 
V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  64  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)   379,  56  N.  Y.  632. 

Ma. — Western  R.  Co.  v.  Harwell, 
97  Ala.  341;  Ijouisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Meyer,  78  Ala.  597. 

Iowa. — Mulligan  ▼.  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  36  Towa  ISl. 

Ky. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  V. 
Brownlee,  14  Bush.    (Ky.)    590. 


Mass. — Quimby  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  150  Mass.,  365;  Hill  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  R,  Co.,  144  Mass.  284,  28  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  88;  Monitor  Mut.  F. 
Ins.  Co.  v.  BufTum,  115  Mass.  343. 

Mo. — Kellerman  T.  Kansas  City, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  (Kan.),  34  S.  W.  41; 
Patterson  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
56  Mo.  App.  657. 

S.  C. — Johnstone  v.  Richmond,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  39  S.  C.  55,  55  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  346. 

Wis. — Morrison  v.  Phillips,  etc., 
Constr.  Co.,  44  Wis.  405,  19  Am.  Ry. 
Rep.  312,  28  Am,  Rep.  599. 

Eng. — Burke  v.  South  Eastern  R, 
Co,,  5  C.  P.  Div.  1;  Harris  v.  Great 
Western  R.  Co.,  1  Q.  B.  Div,  515; 
O'Rorke  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  23 
U,  C.  Q.   B,  427. 

Tex. — Ryan  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co,,  65  Tex,  13,  23  Am.  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
707,  57  Am.  Rep.  589;  International, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Watt,  2  Tex.  App,  Civ. 
Cas.   §   781. 

Tlie  insertion  of  a  stipulation  limit- 
ing the  liability  of  a  carrier  in  a  bill 
of  lading,  and  the  receipt  of  the  goods 
under  it,  are  not  sufficient  evidence 
of  an  assent  to  such  exemption  by  the 


432 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


them.^^  But  a  special  contract  limiting  the  liability  of  the  carrier 
is  only  binding  upon  the  shipper  when  fairly  and  freely  executed 
or  assented  to  by  him,  and  he  will  not  be  bound  by  it  when  obtained 
unfairly  or  through  fraud  or  misrepresentation,  nor  will  his  assent 
be  implied  where  undue  advantage  has  been  taken  of  him.^^  The 
general  rule  is  not  followed  by  the  courts  of  Illinois  and  Ohio,  but 
it  is  there  held  that  the  express  assent  of  the  shipper  to  the  limita- 
tion must  be  shown,  and  that  it  cannot  be  implied  or  presumed 
from  the  mere  acceptance  of  the  receipt  or  bill  of  lading  contain- 
ing the  limitation,  although  the  fact  of  acceptance  may  be  con- 


shipper  or  consignee  to  render  such 
stipulation  binding  upon  the  latter. 
The  Guildhall,  58  Fed.  796. 

Where,  under  a  custom,  a  railroad 
company,  on  shipment  of  goods,  in- 
stead of  issuing  a  bill  of  lading, 
signed  a  receipt  for  the  goods  pre- 
pared by  the  shipper,  which  at  the 
instance  of  the  railroad  company  con- 
tained the  clause,  "  subject  to  the 
terms  and  conditions  of  the  R.  R. 
Co.'s  bill  of  lading,"  and  such  bill  of 
lading  contained  the  condition  that 
"  no  carrier  or  party  in  possession 
of  all  or  any  of  the  property  herein 
described  shall  be  liable  for  any  loss 
thereof  or  damage  thereto  by  causes 
beyond  its  control,  or  by  floods  or 
fire  "  not  due  to  its  own  negligence, 
the  provisions  of  such  bill  of  lading 
become  incorporated  into  the  contract 
of  shipment,  though  the  shipper  was 
not  aware  that  such  provision  wa^ 
contained  therein,  he  having  the 
means  to  a-cquaint  himself  of  such 
fact,  and  in  such  case  neither  the 
shipper  nor  the  consignee  can  recover 
for  the  loss  by  fire  of  the  goods 
■shipped,   while    in   possession   of   the 


carrier  or  of  a  connecting  carrier 
bound  by  the  same  contract  of  ship- 
ment; such  loss  occurring  without 
the  negligence  of  such  carriers.  Cin- 
cinnati, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Berdan,  22 
Ohio   Cir.   Ct.   R.   336. 

42.  Steers  v.  Liverpool,  etc..  Steam 
ship  Co.,  57  N.  Y.  1,  15  Am.  Rep. 
453;  McMillan  v.  Michigan  Southern, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Mich.  79,  93  Am.  Dec. 
208;  Ballou  v.  Earle,  17  R.  I.  441, 
33  Am.  St.  Rep.  881,  48  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  31;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Watt,  2  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Oas.  § 
781.  Compare  Brown  v.  Adams  Ex- 
press Co.,  15  W.  Va.  812. 

It  may  be  a  question  for  the  jury 
whether  or  not  the  shipper  actually 
assented  to  the  limitation  in  ques- 
tion. Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Brady.  32  Md.  333;  Palmer  v.  Grand 
Junction  R.  Co.,  4  M.  &  W.  749,  3 
Jur.  559,  7  D.  P.  C.  232. 

43.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  C-o.  v.  Dill, 
48  Kan.  210,  29  Pac.  148;  Union  Pac. 
R.  Co.  v.  Marston,  30  Neb.  241,  45 
Am.  A  Eng.  R.  Cas.  328;  Simons  v. 
Great  Western  R.  Co.,  2  O.  B.  N.  S. 
620,  89  E.  C.  L.  620. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABIIJTY. 


433 


sidered  as  some  evidence  of  assent."  In  Georgia  the  statute  pro- 
vides that  no  contract  limiting  the  liability  of  a  common  carrier 
shall  be  valid  unless  it  has  the  express  assent  of  the  shipper.*^ 

§  5.  Special  contract  must  be  express  and  will  not  be  presumed. 

In  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  it  is  to  be  assumed 
that  property  accepted  by  the  carrier  for  transportation  is  taken 
under  the  responsibility  cast  upon  it  by  the  common  law,  except 
as  modified  by  statute,  and,  if  lost  under  circumstances  which 
render  the  carrier  liable  by  the  general  rule  of  law,  it  must  re- 
spond, unless  it  can  show  that  there  was  a  special  acceptance, 
equivalent  to  a  contract,  which  exempts  it  from  the  ordinary 
liability  of  common  carriers/''  The  fact  that  the  carrier  was 
accustomed    to   give   to   shippers   receipts   containing   provisions 


44.  III. — ^Oliicago,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v. 
Simon,  160  111.  648,  affg.  57  111.  App. 
502;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harmon, 
13  111.  App.  54;  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Jurey,  8  111.  App.  160  Mer- 
chants' Despatch  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Furthmann,  149  111.,  66,  61  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  145 ;  Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
cox, 84  111.  239,  25  Am.  Rep.  451,  16 
Am.  Ry.  Rep.  457;  Merchants'  De- 
spatch Transp.  Co.  v.  Jnesting,  89 
III,  153;  Merchants'  Despatch  Transp. 
Co.  V.  Leysor,  89  111.  43;  Field  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  111.  458; 
Anchor  Line  v.  Dater,  68  III.  339; 
United  States  Express  Co.  v.  Haines, 
67  111.  137;  Adams  Express  Co.  v. 
Stetteners,  61  111.  184;  11  Am.  Rep. 
57;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Franken- 
berg,  54  111.  88,  5  Am.  Rep.  92; 
Adams  Express  Oo.  v.  Haynes,  42  111. 
89.  See  Anchor  Line  v.  Knowles,  66 
111.  150;  Black  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  Ill  HI.  351,  53  Am.  Rep.  628. 
Acceptance  of  receipt  some  evidence 
28 


of  assent:  Erie,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Dater,  91  111.  195,  33  Am.  Rep.  51; 
Boscowitz  V.  Adams  Express  Co.,  93 
111.  523,  34  Am.  Rep.  191.  See  also 
Merchants'  Despatch  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Tlieilbar,  86  111.   71. 

Ohio. — Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Barrett,  36  Ohio  St.  448,  3  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  256;  Gaines  v.  Union 
Transp.,  etc.,  Co.,  28  Ohio  St.  418,  14 
Am.  Ry.  Rep.  158;  Davidson  v.  Gra- 
ham, 2  Ohio  St.  131. 

45.  Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Spears,  66 
Ga.  485,  42  Am.  Rep.  81;  Wallace  v. 
Sanders,  42  Ga.  486;  Southern  Ex- 
press Co.  v.  Newby,  36  Ga.  635,  91 
Am.  Dec.  783;  Purcell  v.  Southern 
Express  Co,  34  Ga  315;  Southern 
Express  Co.  v.  Barnes,  36  Ga.  532. 

46.  Park  v.  Preston,  108  N.  Y.  434, 
15  N.  E.  705;  Madan  v.  Sherard,  73 
N.  Y.  330;  Blossom  v.  Dodd,  43  N. 
Y.  264;  Dorr  v.  New  Jersey  Steam 
Nav.  Co.,  11  N".  Y.  485. 


4o-i 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


limiting  its  liability  will  not  support  a  presumption  that  there 
%vas  a  special  contract  limiting  its  liability  in  the  absence  of  any 
^^liowiug  that  such  receipt  was  never  given  or  came  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  shipper/^  nor  will  the  carrier  be  absolved  from  liability 
by  evidence  that  the  shipper  or  his  agent  previously  knew  of  con- 
ditions in  the  shipping  bills  or  receipts  usually  given,  which  would 
discharge  the  carrier  from  liability  for  the  loss  sustained/^  Mere 
notices  brought  home  to  the  owner  of  the  goods,  by  which  the 
carrier  seeks  to  avoid  or  limit  its  common  law  liability,  but  which 
are  not  expressly  assented  to,  cannot  be  availed  of  to  defeat  a  claim 
for  loss/^ 

§  6.  Contract  need  not  be  signed  by  shipper  unless  required  by 

statute. 
Although,  as  we  have  seen,  the  contract  limiting  the  carrier's 
liability  must  be  express  and  cannot  be  implied,  the  assent  of  the 
shipper  to  the  contract  may  be  implied  and  the  contract  need  not 
be  signed  by  the  shipper,  unless  a  statute  requires  such  signature 
by  him.^**  But  under  a  statute  providing  that  the  obligations  of  a 
common  carrier  cannot  be  limited  by  general  notice,  and  that, 
except  as  to  the  rate  of  hire,  time,  place  and  manner  of  delivery, 
the  acceptance  of  a  ticket,  bill  of  lading,  or  written  contract,  shall 
not  constitute  an  acceptance  of  provisions  modifying  the  carrier's 
obligations,  unless  the  person  accepting  it  manifests  his  assent  by 
his  signature,  a  provision  in  such  contract  or  receipt  exempting 
the  company  from  liability  is  of  no  effect,  where  such  contract 

47.  London,  etc.,  F.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Barrett,  36  Ohio  St.  448,  3  Am.  & 
Rome,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    144   N.   Y.   200,      Eng.  R.  Cas.  256. 

affg.  68  Hun    (N.  Y.)    598,  23  N.  Y.  49.  Gott    v.    Dinsmore,    111    Mass. 

Supp.   231.  52.    The  assent  of  the  shipper  to  cer- 

48.  Reed  v.  Fargo,  7  N.  Y.  Supp.  tain  express  provisions  in  the  receipt 
185;  Pears^all  v.  Western  Union  TeL  or  bill  of  lading  may  be  proven  by 
Oo.  124  N.  Y.  256,  26  N.  E.  534;  implication,  but  not  the  provisions 
Kirkland  v.  Dinsmore,  etc.,  62  N.  Y.  themselves.  Dillard  v.  Louisville, 
171,  175;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  v.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Lea    (Tenn.)    288. 

50.  See  last  preceding  section. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  435 

or  receipt  was  signed  only  by  the  carrier's  agent.^*  But  such  a 
contract  may  still  be  binding  on  the  carrier,  under  such  a  statute, 
whether  signed  by  the  shipper  or  not/^ 

§  7.  Where  there  are  two  contracts  limiting  liability. 

Where  there  are  two  contracts  of  shipment,  both  representing 
the  same  shipment,  limiting  the  carrier's  liability,  the  carrier  is 
bound  by  the  one  which  is  the  least  beneficial  to  itself.^  Where 
the  carrier  has  posted  one  set  of  notices  stating  the  conditions  on 
which  it  will  transport  freight,  and  has  advertised  different  condi- 
tions in  printed  hand  bills  spread  abroad,  it  will  be  bound  by  the 
conditions  which  hold  it  more  nearly  to  its  common  law  lia- 
bility.^* Where  a  shipping  receipt,  signed  by  the  carrier's  agent 
only,  limited  the  amount  for  which  damages  would  be  paid,  while  a 
special  agreement  under  seal  signed  by  the  shipper  released  the 
carrier  from  all  liability,  it  was  held  that  the  receipt  and  release 
were  separate  and  distinct  contracts,  prepared  and  executed  at  the 
instance  of  the  carrier,  and  the  carrier  could  not,  in  its  own  in- 
terest, elect  which  should  be  the  shipping  contract;  that  the  ship- 
ping receipt,  not  under  seal  or  witnessed,  and  not  regarded  by  the 
carrier  as  the  shipping  contract,  could  not  be  deemed  the  contract 
under  which  the  goods  were  carried ;  the  other  agreement  was  the 
shipping  contract,  and  the  limitations  therein  being  void  as  against 
public  policy  because  attempting  to  release  the  carrier  from  all 
liability  for  negligence,  the  shipper  was  not  precluded  from  re- 
covering the  full  value  of  his  goods ;  that,  if  both  papers  constitute 
but  one  contract,  both  are  tainted  with  the  illegality,   and  are 

51.  Hartwell  v.  Northern  Pac.  Ex-  3  Ry.  &  C.  T.  Cas.  XXV.,  as  to  such 
press  Co.,  5  Dak.  463,  37  Am.  &  Eng.  provision  in  the  English  Railway 
R.  Cas.   635;   Hazel  v.   Chicago,  etc.,      and  Canal  TraflBc  Act. 

R.  Co.,  82  Iowa   477,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  53.  Munn   v.   Baker,   2   Stark.   255, 

R.  Cas.   78.  3  E.  C.  L.  399. 

52.  Baxendale  v.  Great  Eastern  R.  54.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  Smuck, 
Co.,  10  B.  &  S.  212,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B.  244,  49  Tnd.  302. 


436  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

therefore  void,  and  the  liability  of  the  carrier  must  be  determined 
under  the  principles  of  the  general  law.^^ 

§  8.  Conflict  of  oral  and  written  agreements. 

A  common  carrier  may,  by  special  contract,  limit  its  liability, 
and,  in  the  absence  of  fraud  or  mistake,  the  contract,  signed  by  the 
shipper,  is  the  sole  evidence  of  the  agreement,  although  it  differs 
from  the  previous  oral  agreement,  and  the  shipper  did  not  read  it.^*^ 
The  presumption  is  that  the  written  contract  contains  the  entire 
agreement,  and  the  general  rule  applies  that  oral  testimony  cannot 
be  admitted  to  contradict  or  vary  its  provisions."  A  final  written 
contract  between  the  shipper  and  the  carrier  supersedes  all  prior 
agreements  relating  to  the  same  matter.^*  A  subsequent  oral  agree- 
ment cannot  be  shown  to  relieve  the  carrier  from  its  liability 
under  a  written  contract.^^  Where  a  written  contract  was  entered 
into  after  the  breach  of  an  oral  contract  in  relation  to  the  same 
matter,  the  written  contract  did  not  merge  the  oral  contract  and 
would  not  bar  a  recovery  for  the  breach  of  it.^     So,  a  written 

55.  Woodburn  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  236;  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McElwee, 
R.  Co.,  40  Fed.  731,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  6  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  208;  Dixon  v.  Ool- 
Cas.   514.  umbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Bias.    (U.  S.) 

56.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cleary,  137,  where  a  freight  bill  was  signed 
77  Mo.  634,  46  Am.  Rep.  13,  16  Am.  by  certain  parties  as  agents,  but  there 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  122;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  was  nothing  to  indicate  that  it  was 
Co.  V.  Fagan,  72  Tex.  127,  13  Am.  the  contract  of  the  railroad  company, 
St.  Rep.  776,  2  L.  R.  A.  75,  9  S.  W.  parol  evidence  to  show  that  it  was 
749,  testimony  cannot  be  elicited  the  contract  of  the  company  was  in- 
from  a  shipper  on  cross-examination  admissible. 

as   to   the   nature   of   his   agreement,  58.  Smith  v.  Findley,  34  Kan.  316, 

where  the  contract  of  shipment  is  in  23   Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas.   712;    Leon- 

writin».  ^rd  v.   Chicago,  etc.,  R  Co.,    54  Mo. 

57.  McFadden  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  App.  293;  Hostetter  v.  Bfiltimore, 
Co.,  92  Mo.  343,  1  Am.  St.  Rep.  721,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Pa.)  11  AtL  609,  32  Am. 
30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  17,  but  a  re-  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  549. 

cital    in    a   written    contract   of   car-  59.  Corbett  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

riage  that  the  rate  is  a  special   and  86  Wis.  82. 

reduced  one  may  be  contradicted  by  60.  Harrison    v,   Missouri    Pac.    R. 

parol  evidence;   Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   74   Mo.   364,   7   Am.   &   Eng.   R. 

Co.  V.  Home  Insurance  Co..  55  ATirn.  Cas.  382,  41  Am.  Rep.  318;   Cross  v. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  437 

contract  which  does  not  contain  the  entire  agreement  made  be- 
tween the  parties,  but  only  a  part  of  such  agreement,  and  which 
is  merely  supplemental   to  a  prior  verbal  agreement,   does  not 
merge  such  verbal  contract,  and  the  latter  may  be  proven  and  the 
carrier  will  be  liable  thereunder,  though  such  liability  might  not 
have  existed  under  the  written  contract  alone.^^     A  verbal  con- 
tract which  in  no  way  varies  or  contradicts  a  written  contract 
must  be  incorporated  with  it  and  the  two  together  held  to  con- 
stitute   the  whole  contract.®^     ^Vhere  the  terms  of  the  written 
contract  are  contradictory  or  ambiguous,  the  real  contract  under 
which  the  carrier  received  the  property  may  be  shown  by  parol 
evidence  to  explain  the  written  contract.^     Where  a  verbal  con- 
tract between  the  parties  was  complete  and  the  written  contract 
set  up  by  the  carrier  consisted  of  a  receipt,  handed  to  the  shipper^ 
of  the  contents  of  which  he  was  ignorant,   the  verbal  contract 
may  be  shown  and  will  control.^     In  jurisdictions   where   the 
possession  by  the  shipper  of  a  receipt  containing  limitations  upon 
the  liability  of  the  carrier  is  only  prima  facie  evidence  that  he 
assented  to  its  conditions,  it  has  been  held  that  where  a  shipper 
claims  that  the  shipment  was  made  under  a  special  oral  agreement 
and  that  the  receipt  was  not  delivered  until  some  days  after  the 
shipment,  it  may  be  shown  by  other  evidence  that  the  shipment 
was  in  fact  made  under  the  oral  agreement  and  the  presumption 
arising  from  possession  of  the  receipt  thus  rebutted.^     On  an 

Graves,  4  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  100;  64.  King    v.    Woodbridge,    34    Vt. 

Hamilton  v.  Western  North  Carolina  £65.     So,  where  the  written  contract 

R.  Co.,  96  N.  C.  398.  was   signed  after   the  goods   left  the 

61.  Shiff  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  station  and  was  supposed  by  the  ship- 
R,  C,  16  Hun  (N.  Y.),  278;  Hoskins  per  to  be  a  mere  receipt,  evidence  of 
V,  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  19  Mo.  App.  a  verbal  contract,  diflFerent  from  the 
315;  Union  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Riegel,  73  written  contract  h  admissible  to  si.ow 
Pa.  St.  72.  the    real    contract   between    the   par- 

62.  Fitzgerald  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  ties.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark, 
Oo..  27  U.  C.  C.  P.  528.  48  Kan.  321,  55  Am.  &,  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

63.  Salt.sman   v.   New   York   Cent.,  367. 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Hun   (N.  Y.),  445,  20  65.  Strohn  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

N.  Y.   Supp.   361.  21  Wis.  554,  94  Am.  Dec.  564;   Wa- 


438  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

issue  as  to  whether  a  shipment  was  made  under  a  written  contract 
or  a  subsequent  parol  contract  between  the  carrier  and  the  shipper, 
the  latter  has  the  right  to  show  that  the  written  contract  was 
abandoned,  and  that  the  shipment  was  made  under  a  subsequent 
parol  contract.^^ 

§  9.  Contract  must  have  been  fairly  entered  into. 

Contracts  limiting  the  common  law  liability  of  carriers  must 
have  been  fairly  made  and  freely  entered  into  in  order  to  be  bind- 
ing on  the  shipper,^^  Where  such  special  contracts  have  been  pro- 
cured by  duress,*^  or  by  the  arbitrary  insertion  of  words  in  the 
contract  by  the  carrier,''*  or  under  circumstances  where  the  shipper 
did  not  have  a  complete  understanding  of  the  contract  or  freely 
accept  the  same,^**  or  where  the  carrier  has  made  unreasonable 
demands  and  succeeded  in  obtaining  an  undue  advantage  of  the 
shipper,^^  the  courts  will  not  sustain  the  contract.  Such  contracts 
are  not  favored  by  the  courts.  The  carrier  is  bound  to  carry  under 
its  common  law  liability  if  the  shipper  insists  upon  it,  and  it 
is  the  latter's  option  to  accept  a  contract  of  limited  liability 
instead  of  the  insurance  that  the  common  law  requires  of  the 
carrier.''^ 

§  10.  Necessity  of  consideration. 

A  special  contract  between  a  shipper  and  a  common  carrier,  or 
a  stipulation  in  a  bill  of  lading,  qualifying  or  limiting  the  common 

bash   R.   Co.   v.  Harris,   55   111.   App.  Simpson,  30  Kan.  645,  16  Am.  &  Eng 

159;   Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cray-  R.  Cas.  158,  46  Am.  Rep.  104. 

craft,    12    Ind.    App.    203;    Missouri,  70.  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Nock,  2 

etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Carter,  9  Tex,  Civ.  App.  Duv.    (Ky.)    562,  87  Am.  Dec.  510. 

677.  71.  Simons    v.    Great    Western    R. 

66.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Levy,  127  Co.,  2  C.  B.  N.  S.  620,  89  E.  C,  L. 
Ind.  168,  26  N.  B.  773.  620;    Hanoe   v.   Wabash   Western    R. 

67.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co,  v.  Dill  Co.,  56  Mo.  App.  476;  Paddock  v. 
48  Kan.  210,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  1  Mo.  App.  Rep. 
355,  29  Pac.  148.  87. 

68.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Car-  72.  Wallace  v.  Matthews,  39  Ga. 
ter.  9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  677.  617,  99  Am.  Dec.  473. 

69.  Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


439 


law  liability  of  the  carrier  must  be  supported  by  a  valuable  con- 
sideration, apart  from  the  mere  acceptance  of  the  property  for 
carriage  and  agreement  to  transport  it,  such,  for  example,  as  a 
special  or  reduced  rate  which  is  an  actual  reduction  from  the 
usual  freight  rate,^^  or  additional  facilities  for  transportation.^* 
Both  rates  of  transportation  offered  the  shipper  must  be  reason- 
able and  he  must  be  given  the  option  to  make  his  selection,  in 
order  to  render  the  consideration  of  a  reduced  rate  valid  and 
sufficients^     Where  there  is  but  one  contract  and  one  rate  open 


73.  Ullman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  112  Wis.  168,  88  N.  W.  41;  Lake 
Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holland  (Ind.), 
69  N.  E.  138,  63  L.  R.  A.  948;  Hance 
V.  Wabash  Western  R.  Co.,  56  Mo. 
App.  476;  Mouton  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (Ala.),  29  So.  602;  Southard 
V.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Minn. 
382;  Wehmann  v.  Minneapolis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  58  Minn.  22,  61  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.   Oas.   273. 

Surrender  of  a  prior  verbal  con- 
tract is  stifficient  consideration  for  a 
substituted  written  one.  Leonard  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Mo.  App. 
293. 

A  provision  in  a  shipping  receipt 
that  no  carrier  shall  be  liable  for 
damage  by  wet  not  due  to  its  own 
negligence  or  that  of  its  servants  is 
binding  where  entered  into  in  con- 
Bideration  of  a  reduced  rate  of  ship- 
ment. Mears  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  (Conn.),  52  Atl.  610,  56  L.  R. 
A.  884. 

74.  Gardner  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
127  N.  C.  293,  37  S.  E.  328.  The 
clause  in  a  bill  of  lading  limiting  the 
carrier's  liability  will  not  be  held 
valid  on  the  ground  that  a  reduced 
rate  was  intended,  no  rate  being  epe- 
<;ified,   and   none  being  talked   of   by 


the  parties.  Phoenix  Powder  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Wabash  K.  Co.,  120  Mo.  App. 
566,   97   S.   W.  256,   74  S.   W.  492. 

75.  Duvenick  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  57  Mo.  App.  550;  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Sowell,  90  Tenn.  17,  49  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  166. 

There  must  be  an  actual  freedom 
of  choice  between  different  rates  of- 
fered: St.  Ix)ui3  S.  W.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Phoenix  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  88  Ark.  594, 
115  S.  W.  393;  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Cravens,  57  Ark.  112,  55  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  650;  Little  Rock,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Eubanks,  48  Ark.  460,  3 
Am.  St.  Rep.  245,  31  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  176;  Deming  v.  Merchants'  Cot- 
ton Press  Co.,  90  Tenn.  306. 

Parol  evidence  is  admissible  to 
show  that  a  pretended  reduced  rate 
was  actually  the  regular  rate  always 
charged,  and  the  recital  in  the  bill  of 
lading  that  a  reduced  rate  is  not  al- 
lowed is  not  conclusive.  McFad.den 
V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  92  Mo.  343, 
1  Am.  St.  Rep.  721,  30  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  17. 

Findings  in  an  action  against  an 
express  company  for  loss  of  goods 
that  the  company,  on  receiving  the 
goods,  gave  the  consignor  a  receipt 
therefor  which  limited  the  company's 


440 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


and  offered  to  the  shipper  by  a  common  carrier,  and  no  option 
is  given  him,  a  special  provision  limiting  the  common-lav7  lia- 
bility of  the  carrier  to  "  loss  or  damage  occasioned  by  wrong- 
ful acts  or  gross  negligence  "  is  without  consideration  and  voidJ* 
If  no  reduced  rates  were  in  fact  allowed  the  shipper  the  limita- 
tion is  invalid  as  being  without  consideration,"  or  if  the  higher 
rate  adopted  by  the  carrier  for  shippers  not  signing  a  contract 
limiting  liability  is  illegal  as  in  excess  of  the  rate  allowed  by 
statute,  although  the  statutory  rate  is  actually  in  excess  of  that 
charged  the  shipper  in  signing  the  contract.^^    So  also  where  there 
is  no  real  option  offered  to  the  shipper  because  the  agent  of  the 
carrier  has  no  authority  to  offer  transportation  except  at  a  par- 
ticular rate  fixed  by  his  superior,'^  or  the  carrier's  rules  would 
not  have  permitted  the  shipment  unless  the  shipper  accepted  the 
bill  of  lading  with  its  limitations.^*^    A  stipulation  in  a  contract 
for  shipment  of  perishable  freight,  "  Subject  to  delay,"  inserted 
without  any  further  reductions  of  rate  than  ordinarily  charged 
on  a  bill  of  lading  at  owner's  risk,  is  without  consideration  and 
void.*^     Where  a  contract  partially  exempting  a  railroad  from 
liability  for  injury  to  goods  shipped  was  made  in  consideration  of 
a  reduced  rate,  but  the  company  charged  a  rate  in  excess  of  that 

liability  to  the  sum  fixed  as  the  value  77.  Ward  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 

of   the   property,    and   that   the   con-  158  Mo.  226,  58  S.  W.  28;  Gulf,  etc., 

signor   was    informed    that    the    rate  R.  Co.  v.  McCarty,  82  Tex.  608;  Gulf, 

■was  25  cents  if  the  value  did  not  ex-  etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Wright,    1   Tex.    Civ. 

ceed    $50,    and    that    she    authorized  App.  402. 

the  agent  of  the  company  to  fix  the  78.  Paddock    v.    Missouri    Pac.    R. 

value    at    $100,    and    was    informed  Co.,  1  Mo.  App.  Rep.  87,  60  Mo.  App. 

that  the  charges  were  35   cents,  and  328. 

that  she  knew  the  charges  were  grad-  79.  Kansas    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Rey- 

uated   according  to  the  value  of  the  nolds,  17  Kans.  251;   Louisville,  etc., 

property,   show   an    agreement   limit-  R.   Co.   v.   Gilbert,   88   Tenn.   430,   43 

ing  the  company's  liability,  based  on  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  372. 

a  consideration.     Adams  Express  Oo.  80.  St.  rx»uis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spann, 

V.   Camahan    (Ind.  App.),   63  N.   E.  57  Ark.  127. 

245    64  N.  E.  647.  81-  Parker  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

76.  Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.   v.   Lan-  133  N.  C.  335,  63  L.  R.  A.  827,  45  S. 

cashire  Ins.  Co.   (Miss.),  30  So.  43.  E.  658,  43  S.  E.  1005. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  441 

stipulated  in  tlie  contract,  it  was  not  entitled  to  insist  upon  its 
exemption  from  liability.*^  But  the  lack  of  an  independent  con- 
sideration for  an  exemption  of  a  carrier  from  liability  for  dam- 
ages caused  by  fire,  expressed  in  the  bill  of  lading,  cannot  success- 
fully be  urged  to  avoid  such  provision,  although  the  carrier  may 
have  had  but  one  rate,  where  the  consideration  expressed  was 
sufficient  to  support  the  entire  contract  made.*^  Where  it  is  en- 
tirely competent  for  parties  to  enter  into  a  contract,  and  an  agree- 
ment is  made  that,  in  consideration  of  a  stipulated  sum,  the 
carrier  agrees  to  perform  certain  services  upon  condition  of  certain 
exemptions,  sufficient  consideration  is  to  be  found  in  the  carrier's 
obligation  thus  assumed  to  support  the  exemption  provided  for 
in  the  contract.^*  But  if  not,  in  the  absence  of  proof  to  the  con- 
trary, sufiicient  consideration  in  the  way  of  reduced  rates  or 
special  privileges  will  be  presumed  and  need  not  be  proved.^^ 
Provisions  of  a  contract  as  to  the  loading  and  unloading  by  the 
shipper  and  timely  notice  of  injury  to  be  given  to  the  carrier,*® 
or  limiting  the  liability  of  the  carrier  for  goods  shipped  to  a  point 
beyond  its  own  line,"  need  not  be  supported  by  additional  con- 
sideration than  the  contract  of  shipment,  as,  of  reduced  rates,  in 

82.  Hendrix  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  have  stipulations  limiting  liability, 
(Mo.  App.),  80  y.  W.  970.  the    latter    will    be    presumed    to    be 

83.  Cau  V.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  without  consideration.  Southard  v. 
S.  Ct.  663,  194  U.  S.  427,  48  L.  Ed.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Minn. 
1053,  aflfg.  113   Fed.  91,   51  C.  C.  A.      382. 

76.     See   also   Texas,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Where  the  evidence  is  conflicting  as 

Cau,  120  Fed.  15,  645.  to  whether  money  paid  by  the  carrier 

84.  Nelson  v.  Hudson  Pciver  R.  Co.  to  the  shipper  was  a  rebate  obtained 
48  N.  Y.  498;  Rubens  v.  Ludgate  on  the  charges  for  shipment  or  was 
Hill  Steamship  Co.,  20  N.  Y.  Supp.  in  consideration  of  the  assumption  by 
481 ;  York  Co.  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  the  shipper  of  all  risk  of  loss  by  fire, 
3  Wall.  (U.  S.)  107.  See,  also,  Jen-  the  presumption  would  be  in  favor  of 
nings  V.  Grand  Trunk  K.  Co.,  127  the  payment  being  a  rebate.  Thomas 
N.  Y.  438.  aflFg.  52  Hun   (N.  Y.),  227.  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Fed.  200. 

85.  Brown  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  86.  Crow  v.  Chicago  etc.,  R.  Co., 
Co.,  36  111.  App.  140.  57  Mo.  App.  135. 

Where   receipts   contain  no  limita-  87.  Hance   v.    Wabash    Western    R. 

tions   and   subsequent  bills  of  lading      Co.,  56  Mo.  App.  476. 


,j42  '^^^  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

cases  where  the  contract  limits  the  common  law  liability  of  tho 
carrier.  The  latter  is  in  effect  a  stipulation  to  carry  the  property 
only  to  the  terminus  of  its  own  line,  which  is  all  that  its  duty  as 
a  carrier  requires.  If  the  consignor  of  goods  had  no  express  or 
implied  authority  to  limit  the  carrier's  common-law  liability  to 
obtain  a  lower  express  rate,  contrary  to  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Act  and  Elkins  Act,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  contract  was  made 
void  by  such  limitation  as  to  the  consignee  who  had  no  knowledge 
of  such  limitation  when  the  shipment  was  made.*^  A  contract 
limiting  liability  in  the  transportation  of  freight  in  consideration 
of  a  reduced  rate  is  not  enforceable  against  the  shipper,  unless  he 
received  the  benefit  of  the  reduced  rate.^'  A  contract  limiting  a 
carrier's  liability  in  consideration  of  a  reduction  of  rates  is  not 
unenforceable,  where  the  carrier  did  not  transport  the  freight 
at  the  reduced  rate.^"  A  contract  of  carriage  limiting  the  liability 
of  the  carrier  for  loss  or  injury  regardless  of  actual  loss  must  be 
based  on  a  sufficient  consideration.  Mere  agreement  for  trans- 
portation between  parties  to  a  shipment  will  not  support  an  agree- 
ment to  limit  the  carrier's  common-law  liability;  an  independent 
consideration,  such  as  a  reduced  freight  rate,®^  or  an  agreement  to 

88.  Nonotuck  Silk  Co.  v.  Adams  Mo. — Leas  v.  Quincy,  ttc,  R.  Co., 
Express  Co.,  256  111.  66,  99  N.  E.  893,  157  Mo.  App.  455,  136  S.  W.  963; 
aff'g  judg.  166  111.  App.  519;  Id.,  256  Burns  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  151 
111.  76,  99  N.  E.  897,  aff'g  judg.  166  Mo.  App.  573,  133  S.  W.  1;  MeElwain 
111.  App.  525.  V.  St.  I.ouis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.,  151  Mo. 

89.  Lacey  v.  Oregon  R.  &  Nav.  Co.,  App.  136,  131  S.  W.  736;  Wilcox  v. 
(Or.)    138  Pae.  999.  Chicago  G.  W.  Ry.  Co.,  135  Mo.  Ap-p. 

90.  Colorado  &  S.  Ry.  Co.  v.  19.^,  115  S.  W.  1061;  Mires  v.  St. 
Manatt,  21  Colo.  App.  593,  121  Pac.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.,  134  Mo.  App. 
1012.  379,  114  S.  W.  1053;  Simmons  Hard- 

91.  U.  8. — Inman  &  Co.  v.  Sea-  ware  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 
board  Air  Line  Ry.  Co.,  159  Fed.  960.  140   Mo.  App.    130,   120   S.   W.   663; 

Ark. — St.  Louis  <fe  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  Burgher  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,   139  Mo. 

Pearce,  82  Ark.  339,  101  S.  W.  760;  App.   62,    120   S.   W.    673;    Meyers   v. 

Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Hill,  81  Ark.  Missouri,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  120  Mo.  App. 

1,  &8  S.  W.  371.  288,  96  S.  W.  737. 

Idaho. — Mcintosh   v.   Oregon    R.    &  Okl. — Missouri,    etc.,     Ry.     Co.     v. 

Nav.  Co.,  17  Idaho,  100,  105  Pac.  66.  McLaughlin,  29  Okl.  345,  116  Pac.  811. 

Miss. — Jones    v.    Southern    Express  Tex. — Chicago,     etc.,     Ry.     Co.     v. 

Co.,  Miss.  — ,  61  So.  165.  Scott  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  156  S.  W.  294 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  443 

transport  over  its  line  and  that  of  a  connecting  carrier/^  being 
necessary.  The  shipper  must  be  given  an  opportunity  to  choose 
between  the  common-law  right  and  rate  and  the  special  contract 
rate  and  limited  liability. ^^  A  clause  in  a  bill  of  lading  exempt- 
ing a  carrier  from  liability  for  loss  by  fire  is  valid,  although  the 
regular  freight  rates  were  charged  and  no  option  was  given  to  the 
shipper  to  receive  any  other  form  of  bill  of  lading.'*  A  provision 
in  a  bill  of  lading  exempting  the  carrier  from  liability  for  loss  of 
the  property  by  fire  is  valid  only  in  case  a  reduced  rate  or  other  con- 
sideration is  allowed  the  shipper  therefor.*^  A  pass  entitling  a  ship- 
per to  transportation  without  payment  of  fare  is  a  good  consideration 
to  support  a  special  contract  made  by  him  with  the  carrier  limit- 
ing the  latter's  common-law  liability.®^  A  clause  in  a  bill  of  lading 
restricting  the  carrier's  liability  by  providing  that  it  should  not 
be  liable  for  breakage  or  leakage  of  a  stock  of  drugs  shipped,  where 
the  regular  local  tariff  rates  were  charged  for  the  transportation, 
was  void  for  want  of  consideration.^^  A  reduction  of  freight  rate 
is  a  sufficient  consideration  for  a  stipulation  in  a  contract  of  car- 
riage that,  as  a  condition  to  recovery  for  injury,  notice  of  claim 
of  damages  shall  be  given  the  carrier  within  a  certain  time.®^  A 
stipulation  in  a  shipping  contract  that  the  shipper  releases  all 
causes  of  action  which  have  accrued  to  him  by  any  prior  contract 
does  not  have  the  effect  of  releasing  the  carrier  from  liability  for 
damages  already  accrued,  unless  there  is  a  separate  consideration 
for  the  release.^''    A  shipping  contract,  reciting  that  the  charge  for 

92.  Mobile  &  O.  E.  Co.  v.  Brown-  96.  J.  H.  Carter  &  Co.  v.  Southern 
Tills  Livery,  etc.,  Co.,  Tenn.  130  S.  W.  Ey.  Co.,  3  Ga.  App.  34,  59  S.  E.  209. 
788.  97.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  By.  Co.  v.  Cald- 

93.  7n<i.— Pittsburg,  etc.,  By.  Co.  v.  well,  89  Ark.  218,  116  S.  W.  210. 
Mitchell,  175  Ind.  196,  91  N.  E.  725.  98.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  By.  Co.  v.  Fur 

94.  Arthur  v.  Texas  &  P.  By.  Co.,  low,  89  Ark.  404,  117  S.  W.  517; 
204  U.  S.  505,  27  Sup.  Ct.  338,  51  L.  Libby  v.  St.  Louis,  etc..  By.  Co.,  137 
Ed.  590,  rev'g  judg.  139  Fed.  127.  Mo.  App.  276,  117  S.  W.  659. 

95.  Scott  County  Milling  Co.  v.  St.  99.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  By.  Co.  v.  Jones, 
Louis,  etc.,  E.  Co.,  127  Mo.  App.  85,  93  Ark.  537,  125  S.  W.  1025. 

104  S.  W.  924. 


444  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

transportation  was  at  the  tariff  rate,  is  a  contract  for  the  rate 
charged  for  shipments  under  a  nonrelease  contract,  though  it  also 
recites  that  the  rate  is  less  than  the  rate  charged  for  shipments  at 
the  carrier's  risk,  and  hence  there  is  no  consideration  for  a  stipu- 
lation releasing  the  carrier  from  certain  liability/  There  must 
be  a  consideration  to  sustain  a  stipulation  in  a  bill  of  lading 
making  notice  of  a  claim  for  damages  to  goods  in  transit  a  con- 
dition precedent  to  recovery  by  the  shipper.^  A  declaration  con- 
tained in  a  bill  of  lading  to  the  effect  that  a  limitation  of  liability 
expressed  in  the  bill  was  in  consideration  of  a  reduced  rate  is 
prima  facie  evidence  of  such  reduction ;  and  it  was  error  to  tell 
the  jury  in  an  action  for  damages  for  failure  to  transport  safely, 
that  they  could  not  consider  the  contract  as  to  the  limitation  with- 
out other  evidence  of  consideration.^  A  shipper  of  granite  fully 
cut  for  cemetery  work,  who  boxed  it  and  billed  it  as  "  building 
stone  "  and  thereby  obtained  a  lower  freight  rate,  in  consideration 
of  which  he  agreed  to  a  valuation  of  twenty  cents  per  cubic  foot, 
is  not  entitled  to  complain  of  a  defense  on  the  basis  of  the  agreed 
valuation,  in  an  action  to  recover  for  its  loss.* 

§  11.  Contract  signed  by  shipper  v^^ithout  examination. 

Where  goods  are  delivered  to  a  carrier  for  transportation,  and 
before  the  goods  are  shipped,  a  bill  of  lading  or  receipt  is  delivered 
to  the  shipper,  the  latter  is  bound  to  ascertain  its  contents,  and 
if  he  accepts  without  objection,  he  is  bound  by  its  terms ;  he  may 
not  set  up  ignorance  of  its  contents  nor  resort  to  prior  parol  nego- 
tiations to  vary  them.^     So,  if  he  execute  a  contract  hurriedly, 

1.  Holland  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  5.  Germania  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Co.,  139  Mo.  App.  703,  123  S.  W.  987.  Memphis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   72   N.   Y.   90, 

2.  Blackmer  &  Post  Pipe  Co.,  v.  28  Am.  Rep.  113;  Hill  v.  Syracuse, 
Mobile  <i,  0.  R.  Co.,  137  Mo.  App.  479,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  N.  Y.  353,  29  Am. 
119  S.  W.  1.  Rep.    163 ;    West    v.    First    National 

3.  W^ibash  R.  Co.  v.  Curtis,  134  111.  Bank,  20  Him  (N.  Y.).  411.  See  also 
App.  409.  Hoadley    v.    Northern    Transp.     Co., 

4.  Harrison  Granite  Co.  v.  Grand  115  Mass.  304,  15  Am.  Rep.  106; 
Trunk  Ry,  System,  Mich.  — ,  141  N.  Grace  v.  Adams,  100  Mass.  505,  1 
W.  642.  Am.    Rep.    131;    Mulligan    v.    Illinois 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  445 

or  without  due  examination,  he  cannot  avoid  the  limitations  im- 
posed by  it  bj  showing  that  he  was  ignorant  of  its  contents.  If 
he  signs  a  contract  and  acts  under  it  in  enjoyment  of  all  its 
advantages,  he  cannot  repudiate  it  upon  the  ground  that  its  pro- 
visions were  not  brought  to  his  attention.  In  the  absence  of  fraud, 
misrepresentation,  or  mistake,  he  will  be  presumed  to  have  read 
and  assented  to  its  provisions.® 

§  12.  Contract  must  have  been  made  at  time  of  shipment. 

The  acceptance  of  a  bill  of  lading  without  assenting  to  its  con- 
ditions does  not  conclude  one  who  has  shipped  goods  under  a  ver- 
bal agreement  before  the  bill  of  lading  was  tendered.  The  ship- 
per cannot  be  deprived  of  any  of  his  common  law  rights  by  sub- 
sequently receiving  a  bill  of  lading  or  receipt  containing  limita- 
tions and  conditions  to  which  his  attention  had  not  been  called 
when  he  made  the  shipment.^  When  goods  are  shipped  under  an 
oral  agreement  for  transportation,  such  agreement  is  not  merged 
in  'a  bill  of  lading  afterward  delivered  to  the  shipper,  although  it 
provides  for  a  limitation  of  liability  and  that,  by  accepting  it, 
the  shipper  agrees  to  the  conditions,  and  the  shipper  is  not  con- 
cluded by  an  inadvertent  omission  to  examine  the  conditions  from 
showing  the  actual  oral  agreement  of  shipment.^  In  order  to 
limit  the  carrier's  common  law  liability  by  a  special  contract 
or  a  clause  in  a  bill  of  lading,  the  contract  must  have  been  made, 
or  the  bill  of  lading  must  have  been  taken,  without  dissent,  at 
the  time  of  the  delivery  of  the  property  for  transportation.    When 

R.    Co.,    36    Iowa,    81,    14    Am.    Rep.  R.  Co.,  41  HI.  App.  607;   O'Rorke  t. 

514;  Kirkland  v.  Dinsmore,  62  N.  Y.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  23  U.  C.  Q.  B. 

171,    20    Am.    Rep.    475;    Ullman   v.  427. 

Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   112   Wis.   168,  7.  Lamb   v.    Camden,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

88  N.  W.  41.  4    Daly     (N.    Y.),    483;     Merchants' 

6.  Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Has-  Despatch  Transp.   Co.  v.   Furthmann, 

lett   (Tenn.),  79  S.  W.  1031;   Bethea  149  111.  66.  affg.  47  111.  App.  561. 

T.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  26  S.  C.  96;  8.  Bostwiek    v.   Baltimore,   etc.,   R. 

Johnstone  v.  Richmond,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  712. 
39  S.  C.  55;  Coles  V.  Louisville,  etc., 


44G 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


no  receipt  or  bill  of  lading  was  given  or  contract  made  at  the  time 
of  delivery,  the  carrier  cannot  limit  its  liability  by  a  receipt  or 
bill  given  afterwards  and  not  assented  to  by  the  shipper  or  con- 
signee.' When  the  bill  or  receipt  is  given  after  shipment  or  loss 
or  injury  of  the  goods  the  limitations  contained  therein  are  void, 
and  cannot  affect  the  rights  of  the  shipper  under  the  verbal  con- 
tract made  at  the  time  of  shipment,  in  the  absence  of  proof  that 
the  bill  was  accepted  in  place  of  the  prior  contract.^"  Where, 
however,  the  carrier  gives  the  consignor  a  shipping  receipt  stating 
that  a  bill  of  lading  will  be  issued  on  application  at  a  designated 
place  and  the  goods  transported  subject  to  the  conditions  in  the  bill 
of  lading,  the  consignor  will  be  bound  by  the  terms  of  the  bill  of 
lading,"  and,  where  the  intention  of  the  parties  is  not  clear,  it 
may  be  a  question  for  the  jury  whether  a  particular  shipment 
was  made  under  the  oral  contract  or  the  subsequent  written 
agreement.^^ 


9.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Boyd, 
91  111.  268;  American  Express  Co.  v. 
Spellman,  90  111.  455;  Kansas  Pac. 
R,  Co.  V.  Reynolds,  17  Kan.  251; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wood  (Tex.  Civ. 
App),  30  S.  W.  715. 

Where  plaintiff  directed  a  delivery 
company  to  transport  his  baggage 
from  a  certain  place,  and  paid  the 
charges,  a  receipt  given  by  an  em- 
ploye of  the  company,  when  he  sub- 
sequently called  for  the  baggage,  to 
a  person  who  pointed  it  out  to  him, 
did  not  constitute  the  contract,  so  as 
to  limit  the  company's  liability  for 
the  loss  of  the  baggage  to  the  amount 
stipulated  therein.  Pompilj  v.  Man- 
hattan Delivery  Co.,  84  N.  Y.  Supp. 
230. 

10.  Swift  v.  Pacific  Mail  Steam- 
ship Co.,  106  N.  Y.  206,  30  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  105;  Park  v.  Preston, 
108  N.  Y.  434;  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co. 


v.  Adams,  15  Mich.  458,  McCuUough 
V.  Wabash  Western  R.  Co.,  34  Mo. 
App.  23;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Car- 
ter, 9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  677;  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Craycraft,  12  Ind.  App. 
203;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  C.  v.  Wood  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  30  S.  W.  715;  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Meyer,  78  Ala.  597,  27 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  44;  Goetter  v. 
Pickett,  61  Ala.  387;  Strohn  v.  De- 
troit, etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Wis.  554,  94 
Am.  Dec.  554;  Gott  v.  DinsmOre,  111 
Mass.  45,  the  rule  applies  although 
the  shipper  had  formerly  been  the 
agent  of  the  carrier,  and  knew  that 
receipts  given  for  goods  always  con- 
tained a  limitation  of  the  carrier's 
liability. 

11.  Wilde   V.   Merchants'   Despatch 
Transp.  Co.,  47  Iowa,  272. 

12.  Wallingford   v.   Columbia,   etc., 
R.  Co.,  26  S.  C.  258. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


447 


§  13.  Contract  must  be  legible  and  intelligible. 

Where  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  transaction,  or  the 
custom  of  trade,  which  should  necessarily  charge  the  shipper  with 
knowledge  that  he  was  receiving  and  accepting  the  written  evi- 
dence of  a  contract,  a  receipt,  obscurely  printed  in  fine  type,  de- 
livered in  a  dimly  lighted  car  in  which  it  was  difficult  to  read  the 
limitations  contained  in  the  receipt,  although  a  direction  to  read 
them  was  legible,  has  been  held  not  to  be  binding  as  to  the  limi- 
tations therein  contained  on  the  shipper,  because  of  the  lack  of 
the  requisite  evidence  of  the  shipper's  assent  to  the  contract." 
So,  where  a  receipt  contained  a  printed  clause  limiting  the  car- 
rier's liability  for  goods  transported  by  it,  but  over  part  of  this 
clause  in  the  receipt,  a  stamp  was  pasted  so  as  to  render  it  unintel- 
ligible, it  was  held  insufficient  to  warrant  a  finding  that  the  ship- 
per assented  to  any  limitation  of  the  carrier's  liability." 

§  14.  By  what  law  validity  of  contract  is  determined. 

A  contract  of  affreightment  made  in  one  country  or  State  be- 
tween citizens  or  residents  thereof,  and  the  performance  of  which 
begins  there  must  be  governed  as  to  the  validity,  the  nature,  the 
obligation,  and  the  interpretation  thereof  by  the  law  of  that 
country  or  State,  unless  the  parties,  when  entering  into  the  con- 
tract, clearly  manifest  a  mutual  intention  that  it  shall  be  governed 
by  the  law  of  some  other  coimtry  or  State,  or  unless  there  is  some- 
thing to  show  that  the  intention  of  the  parties  was  that  the  law  of 
the  State  or  government  where  the  contract  is  to  be  performed 

13.  Blossom  V.  Dodd,  43  N.  Y.  264,  for   the   jury.     See,   also,  Eawson   v. 

3  Am.   Rep.   701;   Madan  v.   Sherard,  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  48  N.  Y.  216; 

73    N.    Y.    329,    29    Am.    Rep.    153.  Isaacson   v.   New  York,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

These    were    cases    of    local    express  94  N.  Y.  286;   Westcott  v.  Fargo,  63 

companies     receiving     baggage     from  Barb.     (N.    Y.)     354;    CoflSn   v.    New 

travelers   for  transportation   to  their  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  64  Barb.    (N.  Y. ) 

immediate  destination.     In  the  latter  391;   Kerr  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  R.  Go. 

case  the  question  as  to  whether  the  12  Wklv.  Dig.    (N.  Y.)   265. 
delivery  of  the  receipt  under  the  cir-  14.  Perry   v.   Thompson,   98   Mass. 

cumstances  created  a  contract  accord-  249. 
ing  to  its  terms  was  held  to  be  one 


448 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


should  prevail ;  and  then,  in  conformity  to  the  presumed  intention 
of  the  parties,  the  law  of  the  place  of  performance  governs."    A 


15.  Liverpool,    etc.,    Steam    Co.    v. 
Phoenix   Ins.  Co.,   129  U.   S.   397,   32 
L.  Ed.  788,  39  Alb.  L.  J.  373,  5  R.  R. 
&   Corp.   L.  J.  435,   9   Sup.   Ct.  Rep. 
469,    37    Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.    699, 
v'here  a  contract  was  made   in  New 
"York    for    shipment    of    goods    on    a 
British  vessel,  that  the  goods  shipped 
were  to  be  delivered  by  a  carrier  at 
Liverpool,      and      the      freight      and 
primage  were  payable  there  in  sterl- 
ing currency,  and  that  the  vessel  was 
stranded     on     the     coast     of     Great 
Britain,  do  not  make  the  contract  an 
English     contract     or    refer    to    the 
English  law  the  question   of  the  lia- 
bility of  the  carrier  for  the  negligence 
of    the   master   and   the   crew   in   the 
course  of  the  voyage.     See  also  China 
Mut.  Ins.  Co.  V.  Force,  142  N.  Y.  90- 
100,     36    N.    E.     874;     Robertson    v. 
National  Steamship  Co.,  1  App.  Div. 
(N.    Y.)     61,    37    N.    Y.    Supp.    68; 
Armour  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  65 
N.  Y.  Ill,  22  Am.  Rep.  603;  Dyke  v. 
Erie  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  113,  6  Am.  Rep. 
43;   Fairchild  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  148  Pa.   St.  527:    Cantu  v.  Ben- 
nett, 39  Tex.  303;   Ryan  v.  Missouri, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Tex.  13,  57  Am.  Rep. 
589,    23    Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.    703; 
Palmer  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101 
Cal.  187,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  241; 
Hale  V.  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co., 
15     Conn.     539,     39    Am.    Dec.    398; 
Western,    etc.,   R.    Co.    v.    Exposition 
Cotton  Mills,  81  Ga.  522,  35  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  602;  Wald  v.  Pittsburg, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  111.  App.  460 ;  Fonseoa 
T.  Cunard  Steamship  Co.,  153  Mass. 
553;   The  Oarib  Prince,  63  Fed.  266. 
Contract   for   through   shipment. — 


A  provision  in  a  bill  of  lading  of 
goods  to  be  shipped  from  Texas  to 
another  State,  that  the  carrier  shall 
not  be  liable  for  loss  by  fire  is  valid 
notwithstanding  a  Texas  statute 
making  a  stipulation  of  that  charac- 
ter void,  as  that  statute  does  not 
apply  to  interstate  or  foreign  com- 
merce. Otis  Co.  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  112  Mo.  623,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  636;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Sherwood,  84  Tex.  125,  19  S.  W.  455. 

A  State  statute  making  it  unlawful 
for  a  carrier  to  limit  his  common  law 
liability  to  deliver  property  received 
for  transportation  will  not  control 
a  contract  made  in  another  State  con- 
templating a  thorough  carriage  to  a 
third  State,  although  the  carrier  is 
incorporated  in  the  first  State. 
Thomas  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 
Fed.  200,  4  Inters.  Com.  Rep.  802. 

The  presumption  that  a  contract 
for  shipment,  made  with  plaintiff's  by 
defendant  carrier  in  Massachusetts, 
was  intended  to  be  governed  by  its 
laws,  by  which  the  clause  exempting 
the  carrier  from  liability  is  void,  is 
not  overcome  by  the  fact  tliat  defend- 
ant was  a  New  York  corporation,  and 
plaintiff's  residents  of  New  York,  and 
that  the  stock  shipped  was  to  be  de- 
livered in  New  York,  especially 
where,  indorsed  on  the  contract,  there 
was  a  provision,  exempting  the  car- 
rier from  liability  for  injury  to  the 
persons  accompanying  the  stock, 
which  expressly  provided  that  any 
question  arising  thereunder  should  be 
determined  by  the  laws  of  New  York. 
Grand  v.  Livingston,  4  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)  589,  38  N.  Y.  Supp.  490. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


449 


contract  made  in  one  State  to  be  performed  partly  in  that  State 
and  partly  in  another  State,  being  void  under  the  laws  of  the  State 
where  made,  will  not  be  enforced  in  the  other  State,  though  valid 
under  the  law  of  the  other  State  wherein  it  is  to  be  partly  per- 
formed,^^ and  where  valid  in  the  State  where  made,  will  be  binding 
in  the  other  State,  although  void  under  the  statute  there."  Con- 
tracts which  are  to  be  partly  performed  in  the  State  where  they 
are  made  and  entered  into  are  governed  by  the  laws  of  such  State, 
although  they  are  to  be  partly  performed  in  another  State.^* 
When  a  contract  is  made  in  one  country  or  State,  to  be  wholly 
performed  in  another,  its  validity  is  to  be  determined  by  the  law 


16.  Pittman  v.  Pacific  Express  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  59  S.  W.  949;  Mo- 
Daniel  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 
Iowa,  412.  See  also  Hartman  v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Mo.  App. 
88;  Robinson  v.  Merchants'  Despatch 
Transp.  Co.,  45  Iowa,  470. 

17.  Hazel  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
82  Iowa,  477,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
78;  Talbott  v.  Mercfiants'  Despatch 
Transp.  Co.,  41  Iowa,  247,  20  Am. 
Rep.  589;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
-v.  Moody,  71  Tex.  614,  the  burden  of 
proof  is  on  the  carrier  to  show  that 
the  stipulation  was  valid  under  the 
laws  of  the  State  where  made. 

But  this  rule  does  not  operate  to 
render  invalid  a  contract  for  inter- 
state shipment  which  is  contrary  to 
the  laws  of  the  State  where  it  was 
made,  where  such  laws  rendering  it 
invalid  are  themselves  invalid,  as  an 
interference  with  the  exclusive  power 
of  congress  o\er  interstate  commerce. 
Carton  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  59 
Iowa,  148,  44  Am.  Rep.  672,  6  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  305;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Richmond  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  63  S. 
W.  619. 

29 


18.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dru- 
ien,  26  Ky.  Law  Rep.  103,  80  S.  W. 
778;  Merchants'  Despatch  Transp. 
Co.  V.  Furthman,  149  111.  66,  66  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  145;  Michigan  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  Boyd,  91  111.  268;  Fore- 
paugh  V.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128 
Pa.  St.  217,  15  Am.  St.  Rep.  672,  40 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  78;  Brooke  v. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  Pa.  St. 
530,  56  Am.  Rep.  235,  21  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  64;  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Smith,  74  111.  197;  Coup  v.  Wa- 
bash., etc,,  R.  Co.,  56  Mich.  Ill,  56 
Am.  Rep.  374,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
542;  Hale  v.  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav. 
Co.,  15  Conn.  539,  39  Am.  Dec.  398; 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tanner,  68  Ga. 
390;  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore, 
29  Kans.  632,  11  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
243;  McMaster  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  65  Miss.  271,  7  Am.  St.  Rep. 
653;  Knowlton  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  19 
Ohio  St,  260,  2  Am.  Rep.  395; 
Bridges  v.  Ashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27 
S.  C.  462,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  653; 
Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Fairchild,  69  111. 
260. 


450 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


of  the  place  of  performance,  unless  the  contract  expressly  pro- 
vide otherwise.^*  The  Federal  courts  have  refused  to  follow  or  he 
bound  by  the  decisions  of  the  State  courts  in  determining  the 
validity  of  such  contracts  and  other  questions  of  unwritten  com- 
mercial law,  but  hold  that  there  is  a  general  commercial  law,  of 
the  United  States,  of  which  any  local  decision  is  but  the  evi- 
dence, and  that  the  Federal  courts  will  not  follow  such  local 
decision  if  they  consider  it  wrong,  but  will  follow  the  rules  laid 
down  by  Federal  tribunals,  or  exercise  their  own  judgment  where 
the  question  is  a  new  one,  even  when  their  jurisdiction  attaches 
only  by  reason  of  the  citizenship  of  the  parties,  in  an  action  at 
law  of  which  the  courts  of  the  State  have  concurrent  jurisdiction, 
and  upon  a  contract  made  and  to  be  performed  within  the  State.^**^ 
An  express  stipulation  by  any  common  carrier  for  hire,  in  a  con- 
tract of  carriage,  that  it  shall  be  exempt  from  liability  for  losses 


19.  Curtis  V.  Delaware,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  74  N".  Y.  116;  Dyke  v.  Erie  R. 
Co.,  45  N.  Y.  113,  6  Am.  Rep.  43; 
Burckle  v.  Eckhart,  3  N.  Y.  132; 
Pritchard  v.  Norton,  106  U.  S.  124; 
Junction  Railroad  Co.  v.  Bank  of 
Ashland,  12  Wall.  (U.  S.)  226;  Os- 
good V.  Bauder,  75  Iowa,  550,  39  N. 
W.  887. 

The  rule  that  the  place  of  perform- 
ance of  a  contract  gives  the  law  of 
its  performance  was  applied  in  an  ac- 
tion brought  in  Pennsylvania  by  a 
passenger  against  a  New  Jersey  rail- 
road corporation,  for  the  loss  of  his 
trunk,  and  it  was  held  that  it  made 
no  difference  that  the  undertaking  was 
in  part  to  carry  the  baggage  across 
the  Delaware  river,  as  the  inhabitants 
of  both  States  have  equal  rights  of 
navigation  and  passage  on  that 
stream.  Brown  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  83  Pa.  St.  316. 

But  a  contract  limiting  the  car- 
rier's common  law  liability,  void  by 


the  statute  of  the  State  where  the 
contract  was  made,  even  though  it 
was  interstate  in  character  was  held 
to  be  void,  although  the  contract  was 
to  be  performed  in  another  State,  in 
the  absence  of  evidence  as  to  the  law 
of  the  State  where  the  contract  was 
to  be  performed,  the  law  there  being 
presumed  to  be  the  same  as  in  the 
State  where  the  contract  was  made, 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richmond 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  63  S.  W.  619,  revg. 
61  S.  W.  410.  See  also  Southern  Pac. 
Co.  V.  Anderson  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  63 
S.  W.  1023. 

20.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Steam  Co.  v. 
Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  129  U.  S.  397,  37 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  688;  Myrick  v. 
Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  107  U.  S.  102, 
9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  25;  Bucher  v. 
Cheshire  R.  Co.,  125  U.  S.  555,  34 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  389;  Eells  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Fed.  903,  55 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  341;  Swift  v. 
Tyson,  16  Pet.  (U.  S.)   1. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  451 

caused  by  the  negligence  of  itself  or  its  servants,  is  held  in  the 
Federal  courts,  to  be  unreasonable  and  contrary  to  public  policy, 
and  consequently  void,  and  will  not  be  enforced  by  such  tribunals 
although  it  may  be  valid  under  the  law  of  the  State  where  it  was 
made.^^  In  some  of  the  State  courts  and  in  the  English  courts 
it  is  held,  on  the  contrary,  that  such  stipulations,  although  void 
under  the  law  of  their  State  or  country,  are  not  immoral,  and  will 
be  given  eifect,  if  it  appears  that  they  were  made  in  another  State 
or  country  where  such  contracts  are  valid.^^  Whether  or  not  a 
special  contract  existed  has  been  held  to  be  a  question  affecting 
only  the  shipper's  remedy  and,  therefore,  to  be  governed  by  the 
law  of  the  place  where  the  action  is  brought.^^  Where  the  action 
against  a  carrier  is  not  based  on  any  special  contract  and  such  a 
contract  is  not  set  up  or  involved  in  the  action  but  arises  from 
the  contract  and  duties  resulting  therefrom  under  the  commoDi 
law,  the  right  of  the  shipper  to  recover  for  loss  or  damage  is  to 
be  governed  by  the  law  of  the  place  where  the  loss  or  damage 
occurred,  and  any  limitation  placed  by  the  law  of  a  particular 
State  upon  the  extent  of  the  recovery  for  a  breach  of  such  a  con- 
tract, or  for  a  tort  committed  in  violation  of  it,  is  not  applicable  in 
a  suit  brought  in  another  State.^ 


24 


21.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Steam  Co.  v.  24.  Lyon  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  57  N.  Y. 
Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  supra;  Inman  v.  489;  Dyke  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y. 
South  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  U.  113,  6  Am.  Rep.  43;  Pomeroy  v. 
S.  128,  32  L.  Ed.  612,  5  R.  R.  &  Corp.  Ainsworth,  22  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  118; 
L.  J.  271;  Lewisohn  v.  National  Pope  v.  Nickerson,  3  Story  (U.  S.), 
Steamship  Co.,  56  Fed.  602;  The  485;  Gray  v.  Jackson,  51  N.  H.  9, 
Guildhall,  58  Fed.  796;  The  Hugo,  12  Am.  Rep.  1;  Barter  v.  Wheeler,  49 
57  Fed.  403;  The  Brantford  City,  29  N.  H.  9,  6  Am.  Rep.  434;  Little  v. 
Fed.  373.  Riley,    43    N.    H.    109;    Knowlton    v. 

22.  O'Regan  v.  Cunard  Steamship  Erie  R.  Co.,  19  Ohio  St.  260,  2  Am. 
Co.,  160  Mass.  356;  Fonseca  v.  Rep.  305;  Brown  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R. 
Cunard  Steamship  Co..  153  Mass.  553,  Co.,  83  Pa.  St.  316;  Springs  v.  South 
25  Am.  St.  Rep.  660;  In  re  Missouri  Bound  R.  Co.,  46  S.  C-  104;  Bridges 
Steamship  Co.,  L.  R.  42  Ch.  Div.  321.  v.  Ashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  S.  C.  462, 

23.  Hoadley   v.    Northern    Tranep.  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  653. 
Co.,  115  Mass.  304,  15  Am.  Rep.  106. 


452  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

§  15.  Who  may  make  special  contract. 

A  consignor  of  goods  has  power  to  contract  for  their  carriage 
and  bind  the  consignee,^^  A  shipping  contract  limiting  the  liability 
of  a  carrier  is  binding  upon  the  consignor  who  delivers  his  goods 
by  his  agent  to  the  carrier  for  shipment,  where  the  agent  to  make 
the  shipment  assents  to  the  stipulations  limiting  liability  or  accepts 
a  receipt  or  bill  of  lading  containing  such  stipulations  in  the  usual 
course  of  business.^*  But  while,  ordinarily,  a  person  authorized 
to  deliver  and  delivering  the  property  of  another  to  a  common 
carrier  for  shipment  may  be  by  the  latter  treated  as  having  au- 
thority to  stipulate  for  and  accept  the  terms  of  affreightment,  and 
as  against  the  carrier  the  owner  is  bound  by  them,  he  is  not  neces- 
sarily charged  with  any  of  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  bills 
of  lading  other  than  those  which  the  carrier  is  at  liberty  to  treat 
as  within  the  authority  of  the  person  receiving  them  to  accept  in 
behalf  of  the  owners  of  the  property.^  Where  a  carrier  accepts 
goods  for  carriage  to  a  place  beyond  the  terminus  of  its  route, 
being  bound  to  deliver  them  at  the  end  of  its  route  to  the  next 
succeeding  carrier^  it  is  authorized  to  make  such  delivery  upon 
the  usual  contract  required  by  the  latter,   although  under  such 

25.  Nelson  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  27.  Jennings  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
48  N.  Y.  498;  Fills  v.  Michigan  Cent.  Co.,  127  N.  Y.  438,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  623,  6  Am.  Rep.  152.  Cas.   98;    Coffin   v.   New  York   Cent., 

26.  Zimmer  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  379, 
R.  Co.,  137  N.  Y.  460;  Slielton  t.  56  N.  Y.  63r,  Bostwick  v.  Baltimore, 
Merchants'  Despatch  Transp.  Co.,  59  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  712;  Germania 
N.  Y.  258;  Squire  v.  New  York  Cent.,  Fire  Ins.  Co  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
R.  Co.,  98  Mass.  239,  93  Am.  Dec.  72  N.  Y.  90;  Guillame  v.  General 
162;  Hill  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  Transp.  Co.,  100  N  Y.  491;  Swift  v. 
Mass.  284,  28  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  89;  Pacific  Mail,  etc.,  Co.,  106  N.  Y.  206; 
Smith  V.  Southern  Express  Co.,  104  Park  v.  Preston,  108  N.  Y.  434;  Lon- 
Ala.  387;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mor-  don,  etc.,  R  Co.  v.  Bartlett,  7  H.  & 
rison,  19  111.  136;  Ryan  v.  Missouri,  N.  400;  Seller  v.  Steamship  Pacific, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Tex.  13,  57  Am.  Rep.  1  Or.  409;  Hayn  v.  Campbell  63  Cal. 
589;  Lewis  v.  Great  Western  R.  143;  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hamlin,  42 
Co.,  5  H.  &  N.  867;  Van  Schaack  v.  111.  App.  441;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Northern  Transp.  Co.,  3  Bias.  (U.  S.)  Morrison,  19  HI.  139. 

394. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  453 

contract  the  latter  would  be  exempted  from  liability,  and  the  con- 
signor would  be  bound  by  its  act  in  so  doing.^*  General  authority 
to  a  consignor  to  deliver  goods  to  a  carrier  for  transportation  in- 
cludes power  to  contract  for  the  terms  of  transportation  and  to 
agree  on  exemptions  from  liability,  and  the  consignor's  authority 
to  enter  into  special  contracts  with  the  carrier,  binding  on  the 
consignee,  is  to  be  presumed;  the  carrier  need  not  inquire  into 
it.^^  In  the  absence  of  actual  notice  of  the  fact  that  the  consignor 
has  exceeded  his  authority  from  the  consignee,  the  carrier  cannot 
be  made  liable.^"  But  the  consignor,  in  an  action  against  the  car- 
rier, is  not  bound  by  a  special  contract  limiting  liability  made  by 
the  consignee  with  the  carrier,  unless  it  is  shown  that  he  had  notice 
of  the  consignee's  contract  for  carriage.^^ 

§  16.  Carrier  may  not  limit  its  liability  for  negligence. 

The  doctrine  is  established  by  the  great  weight  of  authority  in 
this  country  that  a  carrier  cannot  by  stipulation  or  contract  relieve 
or  exempt  itself  from  liability  for  losses  or  injuries  caused  by  its 
own  negligence  or  want  of  care  and  skill,  or  that  of  its  servants, 
or  by  its  own  or  their  wilful  default,  misfeasance  or  tort.  Public 
policy  and  every  consideration  of  right  and  justice,  it  is  held,  de- 

28.  Rawson  v.  Holland,  59  N.  Y.  sey  Steam  Nav.  Co.  v.  Merchants' 
611,  17  Am.  Rep.  394.  Compwre  Mer-  Bank,  6  How.  (U.  S.)  344;  Robinson 
chants'  Wharf-Boat  Assoc,  v.  Wood,  v.  Merchants'  Despatch  Transp.  Co., 
64  Miss.  661,  3  So.  248.  45  Iowa,  470;   Christenson  v.  Ameri- 

29.  Shelton  v.  Merchants'  Despatch  can  Express  Co.,  15  Minn.  270,  2  Am. 
Transp.  Co.,  supra;  Mills  v.  Michi-  Rep.  122;  Barnett  v.  London,  etc.,  R, 
gan   Cent.   R.    Co.,   supra;   Brown   v.  Co.,  5  H.  &  N.  604. 

Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   36   111.  App.  30.  Meyer    v.     Harnden's     Expf-ess 

140;  McMillan  v.  Michigan  Southern,  Co.,  24  How.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)    290;   Mo- 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Mich.  79,  93  Am.  Dec.  riarity   v.   Harnden's   Express   Co.,    1 

208;   Squire  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  Daly    (N.  Y.)    227;    Knell  v.  United 

R.  Co.,  supi-a;  Craycroft  v.  Atchison,  States,  etc.  S.  Co.,  1  J.  &  S.  (N.  Y.) 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Mo.  App.  487;  South-  423;  Briggs  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6 

ern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Maddox,   75  Tex.  Allen   (Mass.),  246,  83  Am.  Dec.  626. 

300;    Ryan  v.  Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  31.  White  v.  Goodrich  Transp.  Co., 

supra;  York  Co.  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  46  Wis.  493,  21  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  398. 
Co.,  3  Wall.    (U.  S.)    107;   New  Jer- 


454 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


mands  that  the  right  of  the  owners  to  absolute  security  against 
the  negligence  of  the  carrier,  and  of  all  persons  engaged  in  per- 
forming its  duty,  shall  not  be  taken  away  by  any  reservation  in 
its  receipt,  or  by  any  arrangement,  contract  or  stipulation  entered 
into.  Such  contracts  are,  therefore,  declared  to  be  void  as  being 
unreasonable  and  contrary  to  public  policy  and  afford  no  pro- 
tection to  the  carrier.^^     A  carrier  cannot  limit  its  liability  for 


32.  U.  8. — Liverpool,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  129  U.  S.  397,  32 
L.  Ed.  788,  5  R.  R.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  435, 
39  Alb.  L.  J.  373,  9  Sup.  Ct.  Rep. 
469;  Inman  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co., 
129  U.  S.  128,  32  L.  Ed.  612,  5  R. 
R.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  271,  9  Sup.  Ct.  Rep. 
349;  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Erie,  etc., 
Transp.  Co.,  117  U.  S.  312;  Oscanyan 
V.  Winchester  Repeating  Arms  Co., 
103  U.  S.  261;  The  Guildhall,  58  Fed, 
796,  2  McCrary  rU.  S.),  48;  Scruggs 
V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Fed.  318, 

5  McCrary  (U.  S.),  590;  Nelson  v. 
National  Steamship  Co.,  7  Ben.  (U. 
S.)  340;  The  Iowa,  50  Fed.  561; 
Rintoul  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  17  Fed.  905,  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  144;  Thomas  v.  Lancaster  Mills, 
71  Fed.  481,  34  U.  S.  App.  404; 
Eells  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52 
Fed.  903;  Kuter  v.  Michigan  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  1  Biss.  (U.  S.)  35;  Woodburn 
V.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R,  Co.,  40  Fed. 
731,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  514; 
Woodward  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  1 
Biss.  (U.  S.)  447.  See  also  cases 
cited  note  1,  §  1,  ante. 

Ala. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Sherrod,  84  Ala.  178,  4  So.  29;  Ala- 
bama, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Little,  71  Ala. 
611.  12  Am.  Eng.  R.  Cas.  37;  East 
Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnston, 
75  Ala.  596,  51  Am.  Rep.  489,  22  Am. 

6  Eng.  R.  Cas.  437;  Central,  etc.,  R. 


Co.  V.  Smitha,  85  Ala.  47;  Alabama, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V  Thomas,  89  Ala.  294,  18 
Am.  St.  Rep.  119;  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Grant,  99  Ala.  325;  Montgom- 
ery, etc.  R.  Co.  V.  Edmonds,  41  Ala. 
667;  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jarboe, 
41  Ala.  644;  Steel  v.  Townsend,  37 
Ala.  247,  79  Am.  Dec.  49;  Alabama, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Thomas,  83  Ala.  343, 
3  So.  802. 

Ark. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Les- 
ser, 46  Ark  236. 

CaZ.— Hooper  v.  Wells,  27  Cal.  11, 
85  Am.  Dec.  211. 

Colo. — Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Rainey. 
19  Colo.  225;  Milton  v.  Denver,  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  1  Colo.  App.  307. 

Conn. —  See  cases  cited  note  1,  § 
1,  ante. 

Dak. — ^Hartwell  v.  Northern  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  5  Dak.  463;  Hazel  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Iowa,  477,  49  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  76. 

Del. — Truax  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  3  Houst.  (Del,;  233;  Flinn 
V.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Houst. 
(Del.)   169. 

Fla. — Brock  v.  Gale,  14  Fla,  523, 
14  Am.  Rep.  356. 

Ga. — Nicoll  V.  East  Tennessee,  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  89  Ga.  260;  Central  R.  Co.  v. 
Bryant,  73  Ga.  722;  Bryant  v.  South- 
western R.  Co.,  68  Ga.  805,  6  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  388;  Mitchell  v.  Georgia 
R.  Co.,  68  Ga.  644;  Georgia  R.  Co  v. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


455 


the  negligence  of  its  employes  by  stipulating  that  those  furnished 


Spears,  66  Ga.  485,  42  Am.  Rep.  81; 
Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Beatie,  66  Ga.  438, 
43  Am.  Rep.  75. 

III. — United  States  Express  Co.  v. 
Council,  84  111.  App.  491,  Merchants' 
etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v.  Leysor,  89  111. 
43;  Merchants',  etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Josting,  89  111  153;  American  Express 
Co.  V.  Spellman,  90  111.  195;  Erie  R. 
Co.  V.  Wilcox,  84  111.  339;  Bosco- 
witz  V.  Adams  Express  Co.,  93  111. 
533,  5  Cent.  L.  J.  58;  Adams  Express 
Co.  V.  Stettaners,  61  111.  184;  Erie, 
etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v.  Dater,  8  Cent.  L. 
J.  393,  91  111.  195;  Merchants',  etc., 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Theilbar,  86  111.  71; 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Montfort,  60 
111.  175;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Sauper,  38  111.  354. 

Ind. — Parrill  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  33  Ind.  App.  638,  55  N.  E.  1036; 
Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sherwood, 
132  Ind.  129;  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Forsythe,  4  Ind.  App.  326; 
Michigan  Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Heaton,  37  Ind.  448,  10  Am.  Rep. 
89;  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen, 
31  Ind.  394;  Adams  Express  Co.  v. 
Harris,  130  Ind.  73,  16  Am.  St.  Rep. 
315,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  153;  Bal- 
timore, etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Ragsdale,  14 
Ind.  App.  406;  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Bennett,  89  Ind.  457,  6  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  391;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Smuck,  49  Ind.  303;  Ohio,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Selby,  47  Ind.  471,  17  Am.  Rep. 
719;  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Fendrick, 
38  Ind.  150;  Adams  Express  Co.  v. 
Reagan,  29  Ind.  31,  93  Am.  Dec.  332; 
Wright  V.  Gaff,  6  Ind.  416. 

lovM. —  Hart  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  69  Iowa,  485;  McCune  v.  Bur- 
lington, etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Iowa,  600; 
Brush  V  Sabula.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  Iowa, 
554;  Mulligan  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co., 


36  Iowa,  181;  Thompson  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Iowa,  561;  Griswold 
V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  90  Iowa,  265. 
See  Iowa  Code  and  Statutes. 

Kan. — Missouri  Valley  R.  Co.  v. 
Caldwell,  8  Kan.  344,  5  Am.  Ry.  Rep. 
387;  Sprague  v.  Missouri  Pa<c.  R. 
Co.,  34  Kan.  347,  33  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  684;  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Simpson,  30  Kan.  645,  46  Am.  Rep. 
104;  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Peavey, 
39  Kan.  169,  44  Am.  Rep.  630;  Leav- 
enworth, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Maris,  16  Kan. 
333;  St,  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Piper, 
13  Kan.  505;  Goggin  v.  Kansas  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  12  Kan.  416;  Kallman  v.  U. 
S.  Express  Co.,  3  Kan.  305. 

Ky. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Plummer  (Ky.),  35  S.  W.  1113; 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Owen,  93 
Ky.  301;  Baughman  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Ky.  150;  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Brownlee,  14  Bush 
(Ky.),  590;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Hedger,  9  Bush  (Ky.),  645,  15 
Am.  Rep.  740;  Adams  Express  Co.  v. 
Guthrie,  9  Bush  (Ky.),  78;  Reno  v. 
Hogan,  13  B.  Mon.  (Ky.),  63,  54  Am. 
Dec.  513;  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Nock, 
2  Duv.    (Ky.)    563,  87  Am.  Dec.  510. 

La. — Maxwell  v.  Southern  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  48  La.  Ann.  385;  Higgins  v.  New- 
Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  La.  Ann.  133; 
New  Orleans  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  New- 
Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  La.  Ann.  303; 
Roberts  v.  Riley,  15  La.  Ann.  103,  77 
Am.  Dec.  183;  Baldwin  v.  Collins,  9 
Rob.    (La.)    468. 

Me. — Fillebrown  v.  Grand  Trunk 
R.  Co.,  55  Me.  462,  93  Am.  Dec.  606; 
Stone  v.  Waitt,  31  Me.  409,  52  Am. 
Dec.  621;  Sager  v.  Portsmouth,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  31  Me.  228,  50  Am.  Dec.  659. 

Md. — In  this  State  it  has  been  held 
that  the  right  of  common  carriers  to 


456 


THE  LAW  Oi;^  CAKRIEKt). 


;to  assist  the  shipper  in  loading  and  unloading  freight  shall  be 


limit  their  common  law  liability  by 
express  contract,  whenever  there  is 
reason  and  justice  to  sustain  the  lim- 
itation, is  too  well  established  to  be 
questioned.  But  the  contract  ought 
to  be  in  clear  and  distinct  terms. 
McCoy  V.  Erie,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  42 
Md.  498;  Bankard  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  34  Md.  197,  6  Am.  Rep.  331; 
Brehme  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  25  Md. 
328;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brady, 
32  Md.  333. 

Mich. — The  limitation  may  be  made 
by  special  contract,  but  not  by  general 
notice.  Feige  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  62  Mich.  1;  Smith  v.  American 
Express  Co.  (Mich),  66  N.  W.  479; 
Coup  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Mich. 
Ill,  56  Am.  Rep.  374,  18  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  542;  Sisson  v.  Cleveland,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  14  Mich.  489,  90  Am.  Dee. 
252;  Great  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Hawk- 
ins, 18  Mich.  427;  Hawkins  v.  Great 
Western  R.  Co.,  17  Mich.  57,  97  Am. 
Dec.  179;  McMillan  v.  Michigan 
Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Mich.  79, 
93  Am.  Dec.  208;  Michigan  Cent.  R. 
CO.  V.  Hale,  6  Mich.  243.  Compare 
Michgan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Ward,  2 
Mich.  538.  See  also  Michigan  stat- 
utes. 

A  contract  between  a  railroad  and 
a  shipper  by  which  the  railroad 
builds  a  side  track  for  the  shipper's 
convenience,  and  the  shipper  agrees 
to  indemnify  the  railroad  from  all 
liability  for  loss  by  fire,  though 
caused  by  the  railroad's  negligence, 
is  not  against  public  policy,  as.  in 
putting  in  such  tracks,  the  railroad 
is  not  acting  as  a  common  carrier. 
Mann    v.     Pere    Marquette    R.     Co. 


(Mich.),   97   N.   W.   721,   10   Det.   L. 
N.  764. 

Minn. — Hutchinson  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  37  Minn.  524,  35  N.  W.  433; 
Boehl  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44 
Minn.  191 ;  Ortt  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  36  Minn.  396;  Moulton  v.  St. 
Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Minn.  85,  12 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  13,  47  Am.  Rep. 
781;  Shriver  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  24  Minn.  506,  31  Am.  Rep.  353; 
Christenson  v.  American  Express  Co., 
15  Minn.  270,  2  Am.  Rep.  122. 

Miss. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Bo- 
gard  (Miss.),  27  So.  879;  Johnson  v. 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Miss.  191, 
30  Am.  St.  Rep.  534;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Moss,  60  Miss.  1003,  45  Am. 
Rep.  428,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  98; 
Nevi'  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Faler,  58 
Miss.  911,  0  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  96; 
Illinois  Clint.  R.  Cu.  v.  Scruggs,  69 
Miss.  418;  Chicago,  etc.,  F..  Co.  v. 
Abels,  60  Miss.  1017,  21  Am.  £:  Eng. 
R  Cas.  105;  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Franks,  41  Miss.  494;  Southern  Ex- 
press Co.  V.  Moon,  39  ?,Iiss.  822. 

Mo. — D.  Klass  Commission  Co.  v. 
Wabash  R.  Co.,  80  Mo.  App.  164,  2 
Mo.  App.  Rep.  545;  Witting  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101  Mo.  G31,  20 
Am.  St.  Rep.  636,  45  Am.  &  Fng.  R. 
Cas.  369,  28  Mo.  App.  103;  Vaughn 
V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  62  Mo.  App.  461; 
Leonard  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54 
Mo.  App.  293;  Doan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  38  Mo.  App.  408;  Hick  v. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  51  Mo.  App. 
532;  McFadden  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  92  Mo  343,  1  Am.  St.  Rep.  721, 
30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  17;  Potta  v. 
Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    17    Mo.    App. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  4-,^ 

the  employes  of  the  latter.'^    A  shipping  receipt  that  goods  are 


394;  Drew  v.  Red  Line  Transit  Co., 
3  Mo.  App.  495;  Kirby  v.  Adams  Ex- 
press Ck).,  2  Mo.  App.  369,  3  Cent.  U 
J.  435;  Dawson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  79  Mo.  296,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  521;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Cleary,  77  Mo.  634,  46  Am.  Rep.  13, 
16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  122;  Read  v. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Mo.  199; 
Sturgeon  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
65  Mo.  569;  Snider  v.  Adams  Express 
Co.,  63  Mo.  376;  Rice  v.  Kansas  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  63  Mo.  413;  Ketchum  v. 
American  Merchants'  U.  Exp.  Co.,  52 
Mo.  390;  Wolf  v.  American  Express 
Co.,  43  Mo.  421,  97  Am.  Dec.  406; 
Levering  v.  Union  Transp.,  etc.,  Co., 
42  Mo.  88,  97  Am.  Dec.  320. 

But  a  contract,  fairly  entered  into, 
limiting  a  right  of  recovery  to  a  sum 
expressly  agreed  upon  by  the  parties 
as  representing  the  true  value  of  the 
property  shipped,  is  not  a  contract 
exempting  the  carrier  in  any  degree 
from  the  consequences  of  its  own  neg- 
ligence, but  simply  fixes  the  rate  of 
freight  and  liquidates  the  damages. 
Harvey  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
74  Mo.  541,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
293;  Ball  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83 

Mo,  574,  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  384. 
Neb. — Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Kennard 

Glass  &  Paint  Co.  "(Neb.),  81  N.  W. 

372;    Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Law- 

ler,  40  Neb.  356,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

Cas.  255;   St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

Palmer,  38  Neb.  463,  61  Am.  &  Eng. 

R.  Cas.  69;   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

Witty,  32  Neb.  275,  29  Am.  St.  Rep. 

436. 

2V.  F.— Barter  v.  Wheeler,  49  N.  H. 

9,  6  Am.  Rep.  434;   Moses  v.  Boston, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  H.  71,  55  Am.  Dec. 


222.      See   also,   Merrill   v.   American 
Express  Co.,  62  N.  H.  514. 

N.  J. — Taylor  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  8  N.  J.  L.  J.  149;  Paul  v.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.  (N.  J.  Sup.),  57  AtL 
139;  Gibbons  v.  Wade,  8  N.  J.  L.  255. 

N.  C. — Parker  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  133  N.  C.  335,  63  L.  R.  A.  827, 
45  S.  E.  658;  Gardner  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,  127  N.  C.  293,  37  S.  E.  328; 
Branch  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
88  N.  C.  573,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
621;  Mason  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
Ill  N.  C.  482,  32  Am.  St.  Rep.  814, 
53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  183;  Smith  v. 
North  Carolina  R.  Co.,  64  N.  C.  235. 

Ohio. — Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Yoder,  25  Ohio  C.  C.  R.  32;  Union 
Express  Co.  v.  Graham,  26  Ohio  fct. 
595;  Knowlton  v.  Erio  R.  Co.,  19 
Ohio  St.  260,  2  Am.  Rep.  395;  Cleve- 
land, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Curran,  19  Ohio 
St.  1,  2  Am.  Rep.  362;  Jones  v. 
Voorhees,  10  Ohio,  145;  Welsh  v. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Ohio  St. 
65;  75  Am.  Dec.  490;  Graham  v. 
Davis,  4  Ohio  St.  362,  62  Am.  Dec. 
285;  Davidson  v.  Gralwim,  2  Ohio  St. 
131. 

Or. — Seller  v.  Steamship  Pacific,  1 
Or.  409. 

Pa. — Willock  V.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  166  Pa.  St.  184,  45  Am.  St.  Refp. 
674,  35  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  545;  Arm- 
strong  v.  United  States  Express  Co., 
159  Pa.  St.  640;  Buck  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.  V.  Raiordon,  119  Pa. 
St.  Rep.  800;  Weiller  v.  Pennsylva- 
nia R.  Co.,  134  Pa.  St.  310,  19  Am. 
St.  Rep.  700,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Caa. 
390;  Grogan  v.  Adams  Express  Co., 
114  Pa.  St.  523,  60  Am.  Rep.  360, 
30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  9;    Pennsyl- 


458 


THE  LAW  OF  CAKKIERS. 


shipped  "  at  owner's  risk  "  exempts  even  connecting  lines  of  road 


vania  R.   Co.,  v.   Raiordon,    119   Pa. 
St.  577,  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  670;   Adams 
Express  Co.  v.  Sharplesa,  77  Pa.  St. 
516;    Empire    Transp.    Co.    v.    Wam- 
sutta  Oil   Refuiing,  etc.,  Co..,  63   Pa. 
St.    14,    3    Am.    Rep.    515;    American 
Express  Co.  v.  Sands,  55  Pa.  St.  140; 
Powell  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  32  Pa. 
St.    414,    75    Am.    Dec.    564;    Goldey 
V.     Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     30     Pa. 
St.   242,    72   Am.   Dec.    703;    Camden, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Baldauf,  16  Pa.  St.  67, 
55  Am.  Dec.  481;  Bingliam  v.  Rogers, 
6   W.   &    S.    (Pa.)    495,   40   Am.   Dec. 
581;    Beckman    v.    Sliouse,    5    Rawle 
(Pa.),    179,    28    Am.    Dec.    653;    At- 
wood     V.     Reliance     Transp.     Co.,     9 
Watts   (Pa.),  87,  34  Am.  Dec.  503. 

R.  I. — Hubbard  v.  Harnden  Ex- 
press Co.,  10  R.  I.  244. 

S.  C. — Johnstone  v.  Richmond,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  39  S.  C.  55,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  346;  Springs  v.  South  Bound  R. 
Co.,  46  S.  C.  104;  Wallingford  v. 
Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  S.  C.  258, 
30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  44;  Piedmont 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19 
S.  C.  353,  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  194; 
Porter  v.  Southern  Express  Co.,  4  S. 
C.  135,  16  Am.  Rep.  762;  Swindler  v. 
Hilliard,  2  Rich.  L.  (S.  C.)  286,  45 
Am.  Dec.  732 ;  Patten  v.  Magr:  th, 
Dudley  L.  (S.  C.)  159,  31  Am.  Dec. 
552. 

Tenn. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Sowell,  90  Tenn.  17,  49  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  166;  Deming  v.  Merchants 
Cotton  Press,  etc.,  Co.,  90  Tenn.  306; 
Merchants',  etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v.  Bloch, 
86  Tenn.  392,  6  Am.  St.  Rep.  847; 
Louisvelle,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wynn,  88 
Tenn.  320,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
312;   Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jack- 


son, 6  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  271;  Southern 
Express  Co.  v.  Womack,  1  Heisk. 
(Tenn.)  256;  Olwell  v.  Adams  Ex- 
press Co.,  1  Cent.  L.  J.  186;  East 
Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nelson,  1 
Coldw.  (Tenn.)  272;  East  Tennessee, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Bromley,  5  Lea  (Tenn.) 
401;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rogers 
(Tenn.),  3  S.  W.  660. 

Tex. — The  statutes  of  this  sitate  de- 
clare invalid  any  exceptions  or  spe- 
cial contract  seeking  to  vary  the  com- 
mon law  liability  of  common  carriers. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burke,  55  Tex. 
323,  40  Am.  Rep.  808,  9  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  59;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co  v. 
Trawick,  68  Tex.  314,  2  Am.  St.  Rep. 
494,  30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  49; 
Heaton  v.  Morgan's  La.,  etc.,  S.  Co., 
1  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  774,  4  Tex.  L. 
J.  375;  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Lockwood,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.)  357; 
Arnold  v.  Jones,  26  Tex.  337,  82  Am. 
Dec.  617;  Chevalier  v.  Strahan,  2 
Tex.  115,  47  Am.  Dec.  639;  Galveston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ball,  80  Tex.  602; 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams, 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.)  31  S.  W.  559;  Hous- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Go.  V.  Davis,  11  Tex.  Civ. 
App.    24. 

A  carrier  independently  of  the  stat- 
ute, cannot  stipulate  exemption  from 
liability  for  losses  resulting  from  its 
negligence.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Maetze,  2  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  631, 
18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  613;  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  China  Mfg.  Co.,  79  Tex. 
26;  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grant,  6 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  674;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Eddins,  7  Tex.  Civ.  App.  116;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wilhelm,  3  Tex.  App. 
Civ.  Cas.  §  458;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Davis,  2  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Oas.  §  191 ; 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


459 


from  liability,  save  for  the  negligence  of  the  party  sought  to  be 
charged/^  and  the  possession  of  such  a  receipt  raises  the  presump- 
tion of  the  owner's  assent  to  the  risk.'^  But  a  common  carrier  is 
not  released  from  damages  occurring  through  its  own  negligence, 
by  stipulating  that  the  goods  are  shipped  "  at  the  o\vner's  risk." 
At  most  this  would  only  protect  it  against  loss  occurring  from 
the  ordinary  and  known  risks  of  transportation.^®  It  will  not 
relieve  from  liability  for  delay  in  delivering  goods." 

§  17.  The  New  York  rule. 

In  New  York  it  was  held  in  an  early  case  that  common  carriers 
could  not  limit  their  liability,  or  evade  the  consequences  of  a 


^Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Ivey,  71  Tex. 
409,  10  Am.  St.  Rep.  758,  9  S.  W. 
346;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Harris, 
67  Tex.  1&6,  28  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
107;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Corn- 
wall, 70  Tex.  611,  8  S.  W.  312. 

Vt. — Davis  V.  Central  Vermont  R. 
Co.,  66  Vt.  290,  44  Am.  St.  Rep.  852, 
61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  197;  Cutts  v. 
Brainard,  42  Vt.  566,  1  Am.  353; 
Mann  v.  Birchard,  40  Vt.  326;  Farm- 
ers', etc.,  Bank  v.  Champlain  Transp. 
Co.,  18  Vt.  131,  23  Vt.  186,  56  Am. 
Dec.  68;  Blumenthal  v.  Brainard,  38 
Vt.  402,  91  Am.  Dec.  350. 

Va. — Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Say- 
ers,  26  Gratt.   (Va.)   328. 

W.  Va. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Go.  v. 
Rathbone,  1  W.  Va.  87,  88  Am.  Dec. 
664;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Skeels, 
3  W.  Va.  556. 

Wis. — Ulman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  112  Wis.  168,  88  N.  W.  41; 
Cream  City,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
71 ;  Betts  v.  Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co , 
21  Wis.  80;  Boorman  v.  American 
lixpress  Co.,  21   Wis.   152;    Fa'vey  v. 


Northern   Transp.   Co.,   15   Wis.   129; 
The  Sultana  v.  Chapman,  5  Wis.  454. 

33.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Smith 
(Tex.),   16  S.  W.  803. 

34.  Kiff  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
32  Kan.  263,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
618.  When  the  defense  that  the 
goods  were  carried  at  the  owner's 
risk  is  interposed,  a  waiver  of  all 
other  grounds  of  defense  and  an  ad- 
mission that  the  goods  were  damaged 
while  in  the  possession  of  the  carrier 
may  be  inferred.  South,  etc.,  Ala- 
bama R.  Co.  V.  Wilson,  78  Ala.  587, 
27  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  41. 

35.  Morrison  v.  Phillips,  etc., 
Const.  Co.,  44  Wis.  405,  28  Am.  Rep. 
599,   19  Am.  Ry.  312. 

36.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
son, 6  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  271,  12  Am. 
Ry.  Rep.  54;  Tlie  Hugo,  57  Fed.  403. 

37.  Goldsmith  v.  Great  Eastern  R. 
Co.,  44  L.  T.  N.  S.  181,  29  W.  R.  651; 
Stevens  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  52 
L.  T.  324;  D'Arc  v.  London,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  L.  R.  9  C.  P.  325,  22  W.  R.  919, 
30  L.  T.  N.  S.  763;  Lewis  v.  Great 
Western  R.  Co.,  26  W.  R.  255. 


4G0  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

breach  of  their  legal  duties  as  such,  bj  an  express  agreement  or 
special  acceptance  of  the  goods  to  be  transported.^^  The  ruling 
in  this  case  was  subsequently  overruled  and  it  became  the  doctrine 
of  the  courts  of  this  State  that  it  was  competent  for  a  common 
carrier  and  an  owner  of  property,  by  an  express  agreement  fairly 
entered  into  between  themselves,  to  establish  conditions  of  liability 
for  loss  or  damage,  different  from  those  imposed  by  the  common 
law.^^  Later  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  this  State  took  the  advanced 
ground  that  the  power  of  the  common  carrier  to  limit  its  liability 
by  special  contract  extends  so  far  as  to  enable  it  to  exonerate  itself 
from  the  effects  of  any  degree  of  negligence  on  the  part  of  its 
servants,  agents,  or  employes,  even  gross  negligence,  where  the 
contract  expressly  provides  for  such  exemption  and  where  the  con- 
tract is  founded  upon  a  valuable  consideration,  such  as  abatement 
in  whole  or  in  part  of  the  ordinary  freight  rate,  fare  or  charge.^* 
Such  contracts,  however,  are  not  favored  by  the  courts,  and  a 
contract  will  not  be  construed  as  exempting  from  a  liability  for 
negligence,  unless  it  is  expressed  in  unequivocal  terms;  and  every 

38.  Gould  V.  Hill,  2  Hill  (N.  Y.)  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  N. 
623.  Y.   370,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.   Gas.   103; 

39.  Parsons  v.  Monteath,  13  Barb.  Mynard  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 
(N.  Y.))  353;  Moore  v.  Evans,  14  Hun  (N.  Y.)  399,  71  N.  Y.  180,  27 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  524;  Dorr  v.  New  Jer-  Am.  Rep.  28;  Heineman  v.  Grand 
sey  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  11  N.  Y.  485,  62  Trunk  R.  Co.,  31  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
Am.  Dec.  125;  Stoddard  v.  Long  430,  1  Sheld.  (N.  Y.)  95;  Wilson  v. 
Island  R.  Co.,  5  Sandf.   (N.  Y.)    180.  New  York  Cent.,  «tc.,  R.  Co.,  97  N. 

40.  Wells  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Y.  87,  where  the  contract  provided 
Co.,  24  N.  Y.  181;  Perkins  v.  New  that  the  carrier  should  not  be  liable 
York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24  N.  Y.  196,  83  for  the  negligence  of  its  servants,  and 
Am.  Dec.  282;  Bissell  v.  New  York  the  validity  of  the  exemption  was 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  25  N.  Y.  442,   82  Am.  sustained. 

Dec.  369;  Nelson  v.  Hudson  River  R.  In   Cragin   v.  New  York   Cent.   R. 

Co.,    48    N.    Y.    498;     Guillaume    v.  Co.,  51  N.  Y.  61,  10  Am.  Rep.  559,  4 

Hamburgh,  etc.,  Packet  Co.,  42  N.  Y.  Am.  Rey.  Rep.  418,  the  contract  ex- 

212,    1    Am.    Rep.    512;    Westcott   v,  pressly  exempted  the  carrier  from  all 

Fargo,  63  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  349,  61  N.  Y.  lability,  and  this  was   held  to  cover 

542,    19    Am.    Rep.    300;    Poucher   v.  a    liability    for    the    loss    of    certain 

New   York    Cent.   R.    Co.,    49   N.    Y.  live    stock   caused    by    negligence    in 

263,   10   Am.   Rep.   364;   Nicholas  v.  failing  to  water  them. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


4:61 


presumption  is  against  such  an  intention.  Thus,  it  has  been  held 
that  a  contract  releasing  the  carrier  "  from  damage  or  loss  to  any 
article  from  or  by  fire  or  explosion  of  any  kind  "  does  not  release 
it  from  liability  for  damage  by  those  means  resulting  from  the 
carrier's  own  negligence.*^  And  exemption  from  damages  occa- 
sioned by  delays  from  any  cause  does  not  cover  a  loss  by  the  negli- 
gent delay  of  the  carrier.*^  An  exemption  from  all  claims  for  any 
damage  or  injury  "  from  whatsoever  cause  arising "  does  not 
include  a  loss  arising  from  the  carrier's  negligence.*^  The  doctrine 
of  such  contracts  firmly  established  by  the  decisions  of  the  courts 
of  this  State  is  that  in  order  to  secure  to  a  common  carrier  im- 
munity from  its  negligence  or  that  of  its  servants,  it  must  be  so 
expressed  in  unmistakable  language  in  the  contract  and  it  must 
not  be  left  to  a  presumption  to  be  drawn  from  the  language. 
General  words  in  the  contract  of  a  carrier,  either  of  persons  or  of 


41.  Steinweg  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  43  N. 
Y.  123,  3  Am.  Rep.  673 ;  Holsapple  v. 
Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  N.  Y.  275 ;  Oon- 
dict  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  54  N.  Y. 
500;  Rawson  v.  Holland,  59  N.  Y, 
611,  17  Am.  Rep.  394;  Alexander  v. 
Oreen,  7  Hill  (N.  Y.),  533;  Giles  v. 
Fargo,  60  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  117; 
Ohormley  v.  Dinsmore,  51  N.  Y. 
Super.  Ot.  196;  Knell  v.  United 
States,  etc.,  S.  Co.,  33  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.  423;  Prentice  v.  Decker,  49  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)   21. 

But  where  the  bill  of  lading  con- 
tains a  general  exemption  from  lia- 
bility for  loss  by  fire,  and  the  loss 
occurred  from  this  cause,  it  is  in- 
cumbent on  the  owner  of  the  prop- 
erty, in  order  to  avoid  the  effect  of 
the  exemption,  to  show  that  the  fire 
waa  the  result  of  the  carrier's  negli- 
gence or  that  the  loss  resulted  from 
some  breach  of  the  carrier's  duty. 
Whitworth  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  87  N.  Y. 


419;  Van  Akin  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  93 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  23,  87  N.  Y.  Supp. 
871. 

So,  a  contract  for  the  carriage  of 
goods,  providing  that  the  carrier 
should  not  be  liable  for  any  loss  or 
damage  by  change  in  weather,  heat, 
frosit,  wet,  or  decay,  did  not  relieve 
the  carrier  from  liability  for  damage 
caused  by  negligence,  but  did  impose 
on  the  owner  the  burden  of  establish- 
ing that  injury  from  wet  was  caused 
by  the  carrier's  negligence.  Thy  11  v. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  513,  87  N.  Y.  Supp.  345, 
modg.  84  N.  Y.  Supp.  175. 

42.  Nicholas  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  89  N.  Y.  370,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  103;  McKinney  v.  Jewett,  90 
N.  Y.  267,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  209. 

43.  Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  56  N.  Y. 
168;  Westcott  v.  Fargo,  61  N.  Y. 
543;  Mynard  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
71  N.  Y.  180,  27  Am.  Rep.  28. 


4(52  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

goods,  limiting  its  responsibility,  will  not  be  construed  as  exempt- 
ing it  from  liability  for  negligence,  if  fairly  capable  of  other  con- 
struction/* Where  by  the  contract  of  transportation,  the  property 
is  shipped  "  at  the  owner's  risk,"  these  words  will  not  be  held  to 
exempt  the  carrier  for  loss  caused  by  its  negligence/^  A  provision 
in  a  bill  of  lading  that  the  carrier  shall  not  be  liable  for  any  loss 
or  breakage  does  not  exempt  the  carrier  from  the  consequences 
of  its  own  negligence/^  A  contract  for  the  transportation  of  goods, 
stipulating  that  the  carrier  shall  not  be  liable  for  any  damage 
in  excess  of  a  specified  amount,  nor,  in  any  event,  for  more  than 
the  true  value  of  the  property,  does  not,  by  the  attempt  to  limit 
the  carrier's  liability,  relieve  it  from  liability  for  a  loss  occasioned 
by  its  negligence."  And  a  contract  exempting  the  carrier  from 
liability  for  injuries  caused  by  the  negligence  of  the  carrier's  ser- 
vants in  the  execution  of  the  contract  will  not  excuse  a  deliberate, 
intentional  act  constituting  a  breach  of  the  contract.** 

§  18.  Rule  in  Illinois  and  Wisconsin. 

In  Illinois  and  Wisconsin  the  rule  seems  to  be  that  carriers  may 
by  special  contract  exempt  themselves  from  liability  when  the 
loss  or  injury  results  from  their  negligence  or  the  negligence  of 

44.  Rathbone  v.  New  York  Cent.,  Co.,  supra;  Wells  v.  Steam  Nav.  Co., 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  140  N.  Y.  48,  61  Am.  &  8  N.  Y.  380;  Mynard  v.  Syracuse, 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  150;  Kenney  v.  New  etc.,  R.  Co.,  supra;  Nicholas  v.  New 
York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  N.  Y.  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  supra;  Moore  v. 
422-  Fowler  v.  Liverpool,  etc..  Steam  Evans,  supra;  Alexander  v.  Greene,  7 
Co.,' 87  N.  Y.  190,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Hill  (N.  Y.),  546;  French  v.  Buf- 
Cas.  235;  Canfield  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  falo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Keyes  (N.  Y.), 
R.  Co.  93  N.  Y.  532,  45  Am.  Rep.  113;  McCaffrey  v.  Twenty-third  St. 
268,    16    Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.    152;  R.  Co.,  47  Hun    (N.  Y.),  404. 

Blair  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  66  N.  Y.  313,  23  46.  Hutkoff  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 

Am.  Rep.  55;  and  cases  cited  in  pre-  29  Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)    770,  61  N.  Y. 

ceding    notes    to    this    section.      See  Supp.  254. 

also,  Fasy  v.  International  Nav.  Co.,  47.  Marquis     v.     Wood,    29     Misc. 

177 'n.  Y.   591,   70  N.   E.   1098,   affg.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)   590,  61  N.  Y.  Supp.  251. 

77  App    Div.    (N.  Y.)    469,  79  N.  Y.  48.  Keeney  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co., 

Supp.  1103.  47  N.  Y.  525,  1  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  466. 

45.  Canfield  v.  Baltimore,   eU:.,  R. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


463 


their  servants,  except  when  such  negligence  is  gross/'  Railroad 
companies  have  a  right  to  restrict  their  liability  as  common  car- 
riers by  such  contracts  as  may  be  agreed  on  specially,  they  still 
remaining  liable  for  gross  negligence  or  willful  misfeasance, 
against  which  morals  and  public  policy  forbid  that  they  be  per- 
mitted to  stipulate/"  In  accepting  live  stock  for  transportation, 
the  carrier  undertakes  to  use  ordinary  care  for  its  safety  commen- 
surate with  its  nature  and  condition,  and  all  contracts  in  which  the 
carrier  undertakes  to  limit  its  liability  to  less  than  the  use  of  ordi- 
nary care  for  the  safety  of  such  stock  may  be  rejected.^^ 

§  19.  The  English  and  Canadian  rule. 

The  English  courts  at  an  early  period  adopted  the  rule  that 
carriers  might  limit  their  liability  either  by  contract  or  by  general 
public  notice  for  losses  caused  by  their  own  negligence,^^  except 


49.  III. — ^Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Davis,  159  111.  53;  Wabash  R.  Ck).  v. 
Brown,  51  IlL  App.  656,  153  IlL  484; 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peyton,  106 
in.  534,  46  Am.  Rep.  705,  18  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  1;  Merchants'  Despatch 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Thielbar,  86  111.  71; 
Erie,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v.  Dater,  91 
111.  195,  33  Am.  Rep.  51,  8  Cent.  L. 
J.  293;  Erie  R.  Co.  v,  Wilcox,  84  111. 
239,  25  Am.  Rep.  451,  16  Am.  Ry. 
Rep.  457;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Montfort,  60  111.  175;  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  Smyser,  38  111.  354,  87  Am. 
Dec.  301;  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Stet- 
taners,  61  111.  184,  14  Am.  Rep.  57; 
Merchants'  Despatch,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Moore,  88  Dl.  136,  30  Am.  Rep.  541; 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chapman,  30 
111.  App.  504,  133  111.  96,  23  Am.  St. 
Rep.  587,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  392 ; 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Jonte,  13  111. 
App.  424;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Harmon,  17  111.  App.  640;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hawk,  42  111.  App.  322. 


Wis. — Abrams  v.  Milwaukee,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  87  Wis.  485,  41  Am.  St.  Rep. 
55;  Lawson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
64  Wis.  455,  54  Am.  Rep.  634;  Black 
V.  Goodrich  Transp.  Co.,  55  Wis.  319, 
42  Am.  Rep.  713;  Cream  City  R.  Co. 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co,,  63  Wis.  93, 
53  Am.  Rep.  267. 

50.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ross, 
105   111.  App.  54. 

51.  United  States  Express  Co.  v. 
Burke,  94  111.  App.  29. 

52.  Gibbons  v.  Paynton,  4  Burr. 
2298;  Downs  v.  Fromont,  4  Campb. 
40;  Maving  v.  Todd,  4  Campb.  225, 
1  Stark.  72,  2  E.  C.  L.  37;  Alfred  v. 
Home,  3  Stark.  136,  14  E.  C.  L.  168; 
Peek  V.  North  Staffordshire  R.  Co.,  9 
Jur.  N.  S.  914,  10  H.  L.  Cas.  473,  32 
L.  J,  Q.  B.  241;  Covington  v.  Willan, 
Gow.  115,  5  E.  C.  L.  481;  Garnett  v. 
Willan,  5  B.  &  Aid.  53,  7  E.  C.  L.  19 ; 
Bignold  V.  Waterhousie,  1  M.  &  S. 
255;  Mayhew  v.  Fames,  3  B.  &  0. 
601,  10  E.  C.  L.  195;  Leeson  v.  Holt, 


4G4 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS 


where  the  negligence  was  gross.^  By  the  English  Carrier's  Act 
of  1830  it  was  provided  in  substance  that  no  common  carrier  by 
land  for  hire  should  be  liable  for  a  loss  or  injury  to  any  article 
of  property  specified  in  the  statute,  if  the  value  should  exceed  ten 
pounds,  not  occasioned  by  the  felonious  acts  of  his  servants  or  his 
own  personal  negligence  unless,  at  the  time  of  shipment,  its  nature 
and  value  should  be  stated  and  an  increased  charge  paid  for  its 
transportation;  that  no  public  notice  should  have  the  effect  of 
limiting  the  carrier's  liability  as  to  any  article  other  than  those 
specified  in  the  act;  and  that  the  act  should  not  be  so  construed 
as  in  any  wise  to  affect  any  special  contract  with  the  carrier. 
Under  this  act  the  courts  still  maintained  the  rule  that  carriers 
might,  by  special  contract,  stipulate  against  liability  for  any  loss 
resulting  from  their  own  negligence,  except  where  there  was  wilful 
negligence  or  misfeasance.^*     The  Carrier's  Act  was  modified  in 


1  stark.  186,  2  E.  C.  L.  77;  Butt  v. 
Great  Western  R.  Co.,  11  C.  B.  140, 
73  E.  C.  L.  140.  See  Fish  v.  Chap- 
man, 2  Ga.  349,  46  Am.  Dec.  393. 

53.  Wright  v.  Snell,  5  B.  &  Aid. 
350,  7  E.  C.  L.  127;  Sleat  v.  Fagg,  5 
B.  &  Aid.  342,  7  E.  C.  L.  123;  New- 
born V,  Just,  2  C.  &  P.  76,  12  E.  C.  L. 
34;  Beck  v.  Evans,  16  East  244,  3 
Campb.  267;  Birkett  v.  Willan,  2  B. 
&  Aid.  356;  Smith  v.  Home,  2  Moore 
18,  8  Taunt.  144,  4  E.  C.  L.  50;  Beal 
V.  South  Devon  R.  Co.,  3  H.  &  C.  337, 
12  W.  R.  1115;  Beckford  v.  Crutwell, 

5  C.  &  P.  242,  24  E.  C.  L.  300,  1  M. 

6  Rob.  187;  Bodenham  v.  Bennett,  4 
Price  31;  Langley  v.  Brown,  1  M.  & 
P.  583,  17  E.  C.  L.  193.  See  also,  Hol- 
lister  V.  Nowlen,  19  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
234;  dole  V.  Goodwin,  19  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)  251;  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Lockwood,  17  Wall.  357;  Sager  v. 
Portsmouth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Me.  228. 

54.  Webb  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co., 
26  W.  R.  Ill;  Hughes  v.  Great  West- 


ern R.  Co.,  14  C.  B.  637,  78  E.  C.  L. 
637;  Slim  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co., 
14  C.  B.  647,  78  E.  C.  L.  647;  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Crisp,  14  C.  B.  527,  78 
E.  C.  L.  527;  Morville  v.  Great  Nor- 
thern R.  Co.,  16  Jur.  528,  7  Railw. 
Cas.  830,  21  L.  J.  Q.  B.  319;  Oarr  v. 
Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Exoh.  707, 
7  Railw.  Cas.  426,  17  Jur.  397;  Wil- 
ton V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Nav.  Co.,  10  C. 
B.  N.  S.  453,  100  E.  C.  L.  453,  8  Jur. 
N.  S.  232,  9  W.  R.  748;  Dodson  v. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  7  Canada  L.  J. 
N.  S.  263;  Tlie  Duero,  22  L.  T.  N.  S. 
37;  Stewart  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 
H.  &  C.  135,  10  Jur.  N.  S.  805,  12  W. 
R.  689;  Hoare  v.  Great  Western  R. 
Co.,  37  L.  T.  N.  S.  186,  25  W.  R.  63; 
Chippendale  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  15  Jur.  1106,  7  Railw.  Cas.  824; 
Great  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Glonister,  22 
W.  R.  72,  29  L.  T.  N.  S.  422;  Ronaa 
V.  Midland  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  14  Ir.  157; 
Lewis  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  3  Q. 
B.  Div.  195,  47  L.  J.  Q.  B.  Div.  131, 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


465 


1854  by  the  Eailway  and  Canal  Traffic  Act,  which  applied  to  rail- 
ways and  canal  traffic  only,  and  provided  in  substance  that  such 
carriers  could  not  limit  their  liability  for  negligence  except  by  a 
contract  signed  by  the  shipper  or  his  agent  and  adjudged  by  the 
court  before  whom  any  question  relating  to  it  should  be  tried  to 
be  just  and  reasonable.^*  Under  these  acts,  upon  which  the  ad- 
judications of  English  courts  are  based,  the  rule  has  become  well 
established  that  contracts  limiting  the  liability  of  carriers  are  just 
and  reasonable  and  will  be  sustained  by  the  courts  when  it  has 
been  shown  that  a  fair  and  genuine  alternative  has  been  offered 
the  shipper  of  having  his  goods  carried  free  from  restrictive  con- 
ditions at  a  higher  rate,  which  is  not  prohibitive  or  excessive,  or 
at  a  lower  rate  under  which  the  carrier  is  released  from  all  re- 
sponsibility except  gross  negligence,  fraud  or  wilful  wrong  on  the 
part  of  the  carrier  or  its  servants,  and  that  a  sufficient  considera- 
tion has  been  given  by  the  carrier  for  the  reduced  liability  assumed 
under  the  contract/®    The  rule  in  Canada  is  practically  the  same." 


37  L.  T.  N.  S.  774,  26  W.  R.  255,  15 
Am.  Ry.  Rep.  601. 

55.  Robinson  v.  London,  etc.,  R. 
Oo.,  19  C.  B.  N.  S.  51,  115  E.  C.  L. 
51,  11  Jur.  N.  S.  390,  13  W.  R.  660. 

56.  Gallagher  v.  Great  Western  R. 
Co.,  8  Ir.  R.  C.  L.  326;  Taubman  v. 
Pacific  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  26  L.  T.  704 ; 
Peek  V.  North  Staffordshire  R.  Co.,  10 
H.  L.  Cas.  473,  9  Jur.  N.  S.  914,  11 
W.  R.  1023;  Garton  v.  Bristol,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  1  B.  &  S.  112,  101  E.  G.  L. 
112,  7  Jur.  N.  S.  1234;  Lloyd  v. 
Waterford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Ir.  C.  L. 
R.  37;  Steele  v.  State  Line  Steam- 
ship Co.,  L.  R.  3  App.  72;  Hill  v. 
Scott,  2  Q.  B.  371;  Norman  v.  Bin- 
nington,  25  Q.  B.  Div.  475;  Foreman 
V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  38  L.  T.  N. 
S.  851;  Great  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Carthy, L.  R.  12  App.  218,  29  Am.  & 

30 


Eng.  R.  Cas.  87;  Great  Western  R. 
Co.  V.  Gleniater,  29  L.  T.  N.  S.  422, 
22  W.  R.  72;  Manchester,  etc.,  R.  Oo. 
V.  Brown,  L.  R.  8  H.  L.  703,  16  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  174;  Real  v.  South 
Devon  R.  Co.,  3  H.  &  C.  337,  12  W.  R. 
1115,  11  L.  T.  N.  S.  184;  Aldridge  v. 
Great  Western  R.  Co.,  15  C.  B.  N.  S. 
582,  109  E.  C.  L.  582;  MacAndrew  v. 
Eleetric  Tel.  Co.,  17  C.  B.  3,  84  E.  C. 
L.  3,  1  Jur.  N.  S.  1073;  McManus  v. 
Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  H.  &  N. 
327,  5  Jur.  N.  S.  651;  Ashenden  v. 
London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  W.  R.  511; 
Baxendale  v.  Great  Eastern  R.  Co.,  10 
B.  &  S.  212;  Lord  v.  Midland  R.  Co., 
L.  R.  2  C.  P.  339,  15  W.  R.  405,  36  L. 
J.  C.  P.  170;  Ronan  v.  Midland  R. 
Co.,  L.  R.  14  Ir.  157;  Moore  v.  Mid- 
land R.  Co.,  8  Ir.  R.  C.  L.  232,  9  Ir. 
R.  C.  L.  20;    Harris  v.  Midland  R. 


4.0Q 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


As  it  has  been  expressed  by  the  courts,  there  are  no  fixed  or  estab- 
lished rules  by  which  the  courts  can  be  governed  in  concluding 
•whether  or  not  particular  conditions  in  contracts  of  this  character 
are  just  and  reasonable  or  not,  but  each  case  must  be  determined 
upon  its  own  circumstances.^ 

§  20.  Reasons  upon  which  the  different  rules  are  based. 

The  iSTew  York  doctrine  is  founded  upon  the  principle  that  it  is 
a  matter  of  personal  right  that  an  individual  should  be  permitted 
to  make  his  own  agreement  as  to  the  terms  upon  which  he  shall 
have  his  goods  transported,  and  that  it  is  not  a  matter  of  public 
concern  that  he  should  be  deprived  of  this  right  on  the  theory  that 
it  is  necessary  for  his  protection  or  benefit,  except  in  so  far  as 
it  is  necessary  to  protect  him  from  fraud  or  imposition.^'     The 


Co.,  25  W.  R.  63;  Haynes  v.  Great 
Western  R.  Co.,  41  L.  T.  N.  S.  436; 
Doolan  v.  Midland  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  2 
App.  792,  37  L.  T.  N.  S.  317;  Robin- 
son V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  C.  B. 
N.  S.  51,  115  E.  C.  L.  51,  11  Jur. 
N.  S.  790 ;  Pardington  v.  South  Walea 
R.  Co.,  1  H.  &  N.  392,  26  L.  J.  C.  P. 
105;  Harrison  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
2  B.  &  S.  122,  110  E.  C.  L.  122,  31  L. 
J.  Q,  B.  113 ;  White  v.  Great  Western 
R.  Co.,  2  C.  B,  N.  S.  7,  89  E.  C.  L.  7, 
26  L.  J.  C.  P.  158;  D'Arc  v,  London, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  9  C.  P.  325,  23  W. 
R.   919. 

57.  Farr  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co., 
35  U.  C.  Q.  B  534;  Hamilton  v. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  23  U.  C.  Q.  B. 
600;  Hood  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  20 
U.  C.  C.  P.  361;  Henry  v.  Canadian 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  1  Manitoba  210;  Grand 
Trunk  R.  Co.  v.  Vogel,  11  Can.  Sup. 
Ct.  612,  27  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  18; 
6.p«ttigue  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  15 
U.  C.  C.  P.  315;  Scarlett  v.  Great 
Western  R.  Ck).,  41  U.  C.  C.  P.  211; 


Scott  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  23  U. 
C.  C.  P.  182. 

A  condition  in  a  shipping  bill  that 
the  comp.-ny  is  not  to  be  liable  for 
damage  occasioned  hy  fire  not  result- 
ing from  its  negligence,  nof^d  not  be 
just  and  reasonable  in  order  to  be 
valid.  McMorrIa  v.  Canadian  Pai;.  R. 
R.  Co.   (Can.),  1  Ont.  Law  Rep.  561. 

58.  Simons  v.  Great  Western  R. 
Co.,  18  C.  B.  805,  86  E.  C.  L.  805,  26 
L.  J.  C.  P.  25;  Lewis  v.  Great  West- 
ern R.  Co.,  47  L.  J.  Q.  B.  Div.  131, 
3  Q.  B.  Div.  195;  Gregory  v.  West 
Midland  R.  Co.,  33  L.  J.  Exoh.  155,  2 
H.  &  C.  944;  Rooth  v.  North  East- 
ern R.  Co.,  36  L.  J.  Exch.  83,  L.  R. 
2  Exch,  173,  15  L.  T.  N.  S.  624. 

59.  In  Dorr  v.  New  Jersey  Steam 
Nav.  Co.,  11  N.  Y.  485,  62  Am.  Dec. 
125,  the  court  said:  "To  say  the 
parties  have  not  a  right  to  make  their 
own  contract,  and  to  limit  the  pre- 
cise extent  of  their  own  respective 
risks  and  liabilities,  in  a  matter  in 
no  way  affecting  the  public  morals  or 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


467 


o')posing  doctrine  supported  bj  the  great  weight  of  authority  is 
based  mainly  upon  the  fact  that  the  parties  to  such  contracts 
stand  upon  an  unequal  footing,  carriers  generally  being  corpora- 
tions of  a  quasi  public  nature,  and  that  public  policy  and  the 
common  good  demand  that  the  privilege  of  the  right  of  private 
contract  should  not  be  conferred  upon  such  corporations  to  the 
extent  of  enabling  them  thus  to  secure  exemption  from  their  just 
obligations  as  public  servants,  by  securing  absolute  immunity  from 
the  results  of  their  own  negligence. ^° 


conflicting  with  the  public  interests, 
would,  in  my  judgment,  be  an  unwar- 
rantable restriction  upon  trade  and 
commerce,  and  a  most  palpable  inva- 
sion of  personal  right." 

In  Parsons  v.  Monteath,  13  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  353,  Welles,  J.,  says:  "If  I 
have  goods  to  transport,  and  the  com- 
mon carrier  tells  me  he  will  carry 
them  for  a  particular  price  without 
incurring  the  risk  of  loss  or  damage 
by  inevitable  accident,  but  that  if  he 
takes  such  risks  he  must  add  a  per- 
centage to  the  price  of  transportation, 
I  really  cannot  see  what  the  public 
have  to  do  with  our  negotiations,  nor 
why  we  should  not  be  permitted  to 
make  a  valid  contract,  with  such  con- 
ditions and  stipulations  as  we 
choose." 

In  Smith  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 
24  N.  Y.  222,  Allen,  J.,  says:  "No 
principle  is  better  settled  than  that 
a  party  to  whom  any  benefit  is  se- 
cured by  contract,  by  statute,  or  even 
by  the  Constitution,  may  waive  such 
benefit,  and  the  public  are  not  inter- 
ested in  protecting  him  or  benefiting 
him  against  his  wishes.  .  .  .  The 
public  have  no  interest  in  the  ques- 
tion which  of  the  two,  A.  or  B.,  shall 
take  the  risk  of  the  seaworthiness  of 


a  ship,  or  the  fitness  of  a  railway  car- 
riage, or  the  care  and  faithfulness  of 
a  third  person  employed  in  the  per- 
formance of  a  duty  in  which  either  or 
both  have  an  interest,  although  by 
certain  general  rules  the  law  has  de- 
clared that,  in  the  absence  of  any  con- 
tract, the  risk  shall  be  upon  A.  and 
not  upon  B.  But  if  B.  elects  to  re- 
lieve A.,  and  to  assume  his  risks  and 
liabilities,  the  public  are  not  at  all 
concerned,  and  have  no  occasion  to 
forbid  such  contracts." 

60.  In   New   York   Cent.   R.   Co.   v. 
Lockwood,  17  Wall.    (U.  S.)    357,  the 
court,  by  Mr.  Justice  Bradley,   says: 
"  The  carrier  and  his  customer  do  not 
stand  on  a  footing  of  equality.     The 
latter    is    only    one    individual    (^    a 
million.     He  cannot  afford  to  higgle 
or  stand  out  and  seek  redress  in  the 
courts.     His  business  will  not  admit 
such  a  course.     He  prefers,  rather,  to 
accept  any  bill  of  lading,  or  sign  any 
paper  the  carrier  presents;   often,  in- 
deed, without  knowing  what  the  one 
or  the  other  contains.     In  most  cases 
he  has  no  alternative  but  to  do  this, 
or  abandon   his  business.     ...     If 
the   customer   had   any   real   freedom 
of  choice;  if  he  had  a  reasonable  and 
practicable  alternative,  and  if  the  em- 


4  OS 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


§  21.  Liabilities  subject  to  limitation. 

x\s  has  already  been  stated,  in  New  York  and  a  few  other  juris- 
dictions, the  carrier  may  release  itself  by  contract  from  its  com- 
mon law  liability,  except  in  case  of  fraud  or  culpable  negligence 
amounting  to  fraud."  Elsewhere  the  rule  is  well  established,  as 
we  have  seen,  that,  except  as  to  losses  resulting  from  its  own  negli- 
gence or  wilful  misconduct,  or  that  of  its  servants,  the  carrier  may 
by  express  contract  stipulate  against  liability  for  any  loss  occur- 


ployment  of  the  carrier  were  not  a 
public  one,  charging  him  with  the 
duty  of  accommodating  the  pub'.ic  in 
the  line  of  his  employment — then,  if 
the  customer  chose  to  assume  the  risk 
of  negligence,  it  could  with  more 
reason  be  said  to  be  Ins  private  affair, 
and  no  concern  of  the  public.  But 
the  condition  of  things  is  entirely  dif- 
ferent, and  especially  so  under  the 
modified  arrangements  which  the  car- 
rying trade  has  assumed.  The  busi- 
ness is  mostly  concentrated  in  a  few 
powerful  corporations,  whose  position 
in  the  body  politic  enables  them  to 
control  it.  They  do,  in  fact,  control 
it,  and  impose  such  conditions  upon 
travel  and  transportation  as  they  see 
fit,  which  the  public  is  compelled  to 
accept.  These  circumstances  furnish 
an  additional  argument,  if  any  were 
needed,  to  show  that  the  conditions 
imposed  by  common  carriers  ought 
not  to  be  adverse,  to  say  the  least,  to 
the  dictates  of  public  policy  and  mo- 
rality. The  status  and  relative  posi- 
tion of  the  parties  render  any  such 
conditions  void.  Contracts  of  com- 
mon carriers,  like  those  of  persons  oc- 
cupying a  fiduciary  character  giving 
them  a  position  in  which  they  ca,n 
take  undue  advantage  of  the  persons 
with  whom  they  contract,  must  rest 


upon   their   fairness  and   reasonable- 
ness." 

In  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cra- 
vens, 57  Ark.  112,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  650,  the  court  says :  "  The  indi- 
vidual feels  that  transportation  ia 
necessary  to  his  success  and  that  un- 
less he  gets  it  promptly  he  will  suffer 
inconvenience  and  perhaps  loss.  He 
regards  the  probability  of  loss  in 
transit  as  remote,  and  knows  that  if 
there  is  no  loss,  the  contract  is  im- 
materiaL  Under  such  circumstances, 
he  will  assume  the  risk  of  contingent 
future  loss  rather  than  sustain  a  loss 
that  is  certain  and  present,  as  men 
usually  are  prone  to  sacrifice  contin- 
gent future  interest  to  satisfy  pres- 
ent wants.  So  we  think  it  should  be 
held,  as  a  matter  of  law,  that  the 
parties  stand  upon  a  footing  of  in- 
equality, and  that  individuals  desir- 
ing to  make  shipments  are  under  a 
necessity  sufficient,  in  the  ordinary 
affairs  of  life,  to  amount  to  compul- 
sion, where  it  is  pressed." 

61.  Bissell  V.  New  York  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  25  N.  Y.  443;  Wells  v.  New  York 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  24  N.  Y.  181;  Perkins 
V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24  N.  Y. 
196.  See  also,  §§  17  and  18,  ante, 
and  cases  there  cited. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABnjTY. 


469 


ring  from  anj  cause  whatever/^  It  may  stipulate  that  it  shall  not 
be  liable  for  losses  occasioned  by  fire  and  a  shipper  is  bound  by 
such  a  provision  in  a  bill  of  lading,  where  he  was  chargeable  with 
knowledge  that  the  bill  contained  such  a  clause  and  made  no  objec- 
tion thereto,  and  it  is  not  shown  that  the  loss  resulted  from  the 
carrier's  negligence/^  It  may  stipulate  against  losses  occasioned 
by  strikes  of  its  employes.^*  It  may,  by  special  contract,  limit  its 
liability  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods  of  a  specified  class,  unless 
the  shipper  has  complied  with  certain  conditions.*^  A  provision 
in  a  bill  of  lading  limiting  the  carrier's  liability  to  damages  result- 
ing only  from  negligence  of  itself  or  its  agent  is  reasonable  and 
binding.®^  An  agreement  that  a  carrier  shall  not  be  responsible 
for  loss  or  damage  from  one  of  certain  specified  causes,  other  than 
its  own  negligence  is  valid."  The  carrier  may  stipulate  that  it 
will  not  be  liable  for  loss  or  injury  of  goods  after  they  have  passed 
from  its  hands  into  those  of  a  connecting  line.^  It  may  stipulate 
that  it  will  not  be  liable  for  the  loss  of  goods  unless  at  the  time 
they  are  received  for  shipment  a  memorandum  in  writing  stating 

62.  See  §  1,  ante,  and  cases  there  ArcMorrin  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co. 
cited.  (Can.),   1  Ont,  Law  Rep.  561. 

63.  Cau  V.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  64.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gatewood, 
Fed.  91;  Charnock  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  79  Tex.  89;  International,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  113  Fed.  92;  Steinweg  v.  Erie  R-  Co.  v.  Server,  3  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  § 
Co.,  43  N.  Y.  123,  3  Am.  Rep.  673;  441.  See  Liability  for  delay,  §  1, 
Eostwick  V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  chap.  8. 

N.  Y.  712;  Lamb  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  65.  Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Reid, 

Co.,  46  N.  Y.  271,  7  Am.  Rep.  327;  91  Ga.  377;   Illinois   Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 

Stedman  v.  Western  Transp.  Co.,,  48  Scruggs,  69  Miss.  418;  Atchison,  etc.. 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    97;   Davis  v.  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Bryan    (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  28 

Vermont  R.  Co.,  6G  Vt.  290,  44  Am.  S.   W.   98;    Virginia,   etc.,   R.    Co.   T. 

St.  Rep.  852;  New  Orleans  Mut.  Ins.  Sayers,  26  Gratt.   (Va.)   328. 

Co.  V.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  66.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Lan- 

La.  Ann.  302;   St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ders    (Ala.),  33  So.  482. 

V.  Bone,  52  Ark.  26;  Seller  v.  Steam-  67.  Morse  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co., 

ship  Pacific,  1  Or.  409;  Levy  v.  Pont-  97  Me.  77,  53  Atl.  874. 

chartrain   R.   Co.,   23   La.   Ann.   477;  68.  See   Connecting-  Carriers,  chap. 

New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co.  v.  Mer-  20 

chants'  Bank,   6  How.    (U.   S.)    344; 


470  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

the  character  and  value  of  the  articles  is  delivered  bj  the  shipper 
and  an  extra  compensation  paid ;  but  such  a  provision  will  not 
relieve  the  carrier  from  liability  for  negligence,  if  it  is  informed 
before  shipment  of  the  special  and  unusual  value  of  the  goods 
shipped,^*  Carriers  have  the  right  to  contract  against  their  as- 
sumption of  liability  that  accrues  to  them  merely  as  bailees,  and  in 
common  with  other  bailees,  and  not  as  carriers.™  Where  no  duty 
rests  upon  the  carrier  under  the  common  law  or  by  reason  of  a 
statute  to  receive  and  transport  the  goods,  it  may  limit  its  liability 
to  any  extent  except  for  wilful  injury,  negligence  or  misfeasance, 
as,  for  example,  for  losses  occasioned  in  the  transportation  of 
dangerous  explosives,^^  or  for  losses  not  occurring  on  its  own  line 
or  originating  there,'^  or  for  losses  in  the  transportation  of  a  circus 
train  loaded  with  wild  animals.^^  A  carrier  and  a  shipper  have 
a  right  to  stipulate  in  advance  the  value  of  goods  shipped,  and  to 
limit  the  carrier's  liability  in  case  of  their  loss  or  damage  from 
any  cause  except  collision  or  from  cars  being  thrown  from  the 

69.  Rathbone  v.  New  York  Cent.,  liability  for  loss  and  damage  to  any 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  140  N.  Y.  48.  of    the    circus    company's     property, 

70.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schuldt  menagerie,  ears,  or  equipment  while 
(Neb.),  92  N.  W.  162.  in  transit,  and  to  indemnify  the  car- 

71.  California  Powder  Works  v.  rier  against  damage  or  injury  to  any 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Cal.  329.  of     the     circus     company's     oflBcers, 

72.  See  Connecting  Carriers,  chap.  agents,  performers,  or  employes,  was 
20  Qot    invalid,    as     contrary    to    public 

73.  Where  a  railroad  company  policy.  Wilson  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
agreed  to  haul  certain  cars  of  the  pro-  Co.,  129  Fed.  774.  Citing  New  York 
prietor  of  a  circus  according  to  a  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Lockwood,  17  Wall, 
special  schedule,  and  for  a  price  less  357,  21  L.  Ed.  627;  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
than  the  regular  rates  for  such  ser-  Co.  v.  Wallace,  66  Fed.  506,  14  C.  C. 
vices,  the  carrier's  servants  having  no  A.  257,  30  L.  R.  A.  161;  Coup  v.  Wa- 
right  to  direct  the  loading  or  unload-  bash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Mich.  Ill,  22 
ing,  which  was  in  the  exclusive  charge  N.  W.  215;  56  Am.  Rep.  374;  Robert- 
of  the  employes  of  the  circus  com-  son  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  156  Mass. 
pany,  an  express  contract  between  the  525,  31  N.  E.  650,  32  Am.  St.  Rep. 
parties,  exempting  the  carrier  from  482.  Following  Railway  Co.  v. 
liability  for  the  negligence  of  its  em-  Wright,  176  U.  S.  498,  20  S.  Ct.  385, 
ployes,  and  releasing  the  carrier  from  44  L.  Ed.  560. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  471 

track/^  Though  a  common  carrier  can  make  a  valid  agreement 
fixing  the  value  of  shipments  in  case  of  loss  bj  its  negligence,  such 
agreement  must  be  reasonable,  and  it  cannot  stipulate  that  it  shall 
be  liable  for  an  amount  less  than  the  value  of  property  lost  by  its 
negligence,  thereby  exempting  itself  pro  tanto  from  liability,  the 
measure  of  damages  being  the  amount  of  the  loss,''''  In  all  such 
<;ases,  the  burden  of  proof  is  upon  the  shipper  and  the  carrier  will 
not  be  liable  for  any  loss  or  injury  to  goods  shipped  v^ithin  the 
terms  of  the  exemption  in  the  contract,  except  upon  proof  that  the 
loss  or  injury  was  the  result  of  the  carrier's  negligence.''® 

I  22.  Mode  or  form  of  limitation. — Bill  of  lading  or  shipping 
receipt. 
The  acceptance  of  a  receipt  limiting  the  liability  of  a  carrier 
for  goods  received  by  it  for  carriage  makes  a  contract  binding 
on  both  parties."  But,  an  express  company  acting  as  a  collector 
cannot  limit  its  liability  as  such  for  accepting  a  draft  instead  of 
money  to  that  of  a  forwarder,  nor  to  a  definite  sum,  by  stipulations 
in  its  receipt  given  for  the  claim  to  be  collected.^^  Where  a 
package  is  delivered  to  a  carrier,  to  be  delivered  in  another  State, 
the  company's  receipt,  stating  that  it  shall  not  be  liable  to  the 
holder  beyond  a  certain  sum,  at  which  the  article  forwarded  is 
valued,  which  is  not  signed  by  the  shipper,  and  no  statement  is 
made  by  him  as  to  its  value,  is  not  a  valid  stipulation  against  the 
negligent  loss  of  such  package.''^  But  where  a  shipping  receipt, 
entered  into  in  consideration  of  a  reduced  rate  of  shipment,  stipu- 
lates that  no  carrier  shall  be  liable  for  damages  by  water  not  due 
to  its  own  negligence  or  that  of  its  servants,  an  objection  in  an 

74.  Hill  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  han,  29  Ind.  App.  606,  63  N.  E.  245, 
33   Wash.  697,  74  Pac.   1054.  94  Am.  St.  Rep.  279,  rehearing  denied 

75.  Gardiner  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  29  Ind.  App.  606,  64  N.  E.  647,  94 
127  N.  C.  293,  37  S.  E.  328.  Am.  St.  Rep.  279. 

76.  See  Burden  of  Proof  where  78.  Gowling  v.  American  Express 
special  contract  is  set  up,  §  5,  chap.  Co.,  102  Mo.  App.  366,  76  S.  W.  712. 
14.  79.  Jaeobson  v.  Adams  Express  Co., 

77.  Adams  Express   Co.   v.   Carna-      1  O.  C.  D.  212,  1  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  381. 


472  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

action  against  one  of  the  carriers  for  damages  to  the  freight  by 
water  that  the  instrument  is  a  mere  receipt,  and  not  a  binding 
contract,  is  untenable.^"  An  initial  carrier,  issuing  a  bill  of  lading 
stipulating  for  the  carriage  of  goods  to  their  destination  if  on 
its  road,  otherwise  to  deliver  the  same  to  another  carrier  on  the 
route  to  said  destination,  and  providing  that  no  carrier  shall  be 
liable  for  loss  not  occurring  on  its  own  road,  nor  after  the  prop- 
erty is  ready  for  delivery  to  the  next  carrier  or  consignee,  is  not 
liable  for  the  failure  of  the  connecting  carrier  to  deliver  the  goods.^^ 
Exemptions  from  liability  will  not  be  presumed,  but  must  be 
found  clearly  expressed  in  the  contract,  and,  if  there  be  any  am- 
biguity, it  will  be  resolved  against  the  carrier  ;^^  and  the  burden 
of  proving  such  exemption  is  upon  the  carrier.^'  If,  by  its  terms, 
the  contract  of  carriage  covers  all  the  lines  between  the  point  of 
shipment  and  the  destination  of  the  goods,  then  the  initial  carrier 
becomes  liable  for  the  faithful  performance  of  duty  by  all  the 
carriers,  and  each  is  entitled  to  such  exemption  as  is  contained 
in  the  contract  of  carriage.^*  But  where  the  first  carrier  only 
contracts  to  carry  to  and  deliver  to  another  carrier,  such  con- 
necting carrier  is  not  entitled  to  any  exemptions  by  virtue  of  that 
contract  of  carriage ;  and  the  fact  that  it  was  known  at  the  time 
of  shipment  that  the  goods  would  go  over  different  lines  does  not 
change  the  liability  of  the  carrier,  unless  it  stipulate  therefor.^^ 
Under  a  statute,  providing  that,  when  any  property  is  delivered 
to  a  common  carrier  to  be  transported,  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for 
the  carrier  to  limit  its  common  law  liability  by  any  stipulation 
expressed  in  the  receipt  given  for  the  property,  the  mere  delivery 

80.  Mears  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83.    Jennings   v.    Grand    Trunk    R. 
75  Conn.  171,  52  Atl.  610,  56  L.  R.  A.  Co.,  127  N.  Y.  438,  28  N.  E.  394, 
884,  96  Am.  St.  Rep.  192.  84.    Jennings    v.    Grand    Trunk    R. 

81.  American  Hay  Co.  v.  Bath,  etc.,  Co.,  supra. 

R.  Co.,  85  N.  Y.  Supp.  341.  85.  Aetna  Insurance  Co.  v.  Wheeler, 

82.  Edsall  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,      49  N.  Y,  616;  Robinson  v.  New  York, 
50  N.  Y.  661.  etc.,  S.  Co.,  63  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  211, 

71  N.  Y.  Supp.  424. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  473 

of  a  receipt  restricting  the  indemnity  to  the  consignor,  the  car- 
rier having  full  means  of  knowledge  of  the  character  of  the  con- 
signment, and  in  the  absence  of  any  express  agreement  limiting 
the  liability,  does  not  restrict  the  right  of  the  owner,  suffering  loss 
from  the  negligence  of  the  carrier,  to  recover  full  compensation.^ 
But,  notwithstanding  such  a  statute,  a  contract  signed  by  the 
shipper,  providing  that,  in  consideration  of  the  lower  rate  of 
freight,  his  recovery,  in  case  of  damage,  shall  be  limited  to  a 
specified  amount,  is  binding  on  him,  he  knowing  of  the  provision, 
though  the  railroad  clerk  told  him  the  clause  "  did  not  amount  to 
anything,"  and  was  "  only  a  matter  of  form,"  such  statement  not 
being  within  the  line  of  the  servant's  duties,  and  the  contract  in- 
forming the  shipper  of  the  two  rates,  that  the  lower  was  in  con- 
sideration of  the  limited  liability,  that  the  shipper  could  be  bound 
only  by  written  contract,  and  that  a  special  contract  could  only  be 
made  by  a  general  officer."  A  shipper's  acceptance  of  an  express 
company's  receipt  limiting  liability  for  value  unless  a  different 
value  is  stated  is  sufficient  to  justify  application  of  the  doctrine 
that  such  company,  when  its  rates  are  graduated  by  value,  may 
under  the  Carmack  Amendment,  June  29,  1906,  to  Act  February 
4,  1887,  §  20,  limit  its  liability  for  loss  to  the  declared  value.^* 
The  valuation  named  in  a  shipping  contract  signed  by  the  shipper 
is  as  much  an  agreed  valuation  within  that  amendment  as  if  the 
shipper  had  stated  the  value  on  inquiry.^*  A  consignor,  who  de- 
livers goods  to  an  express  company,  and  who  accepts  a  paper  with 
knowledge  that  it  contains  a  contract,  impliedly  agrees  to  the 
terms  thereof;  but  a  consignor,  who  accepts  a  receipt  without 
notice  or  knowledge  that  it  contains  a  contract  on  the  back  thereof, 
does  not  agree  to  its  terms.^    General  words  in  a  contract  of  car- 

86.  Powers  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Wells,  89.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harri- 
Fargo  &  Co.,  93  Minn.  143,  100  N.  W.  man  Bros.,  227  U.  S.  657,  33  Sup.  Ct. 
735,  397,  57  L.  Ed.  ~. 

87.  Jennings  v.  Smith,  99  Fed.  189.  90.   Bennett    v.    Virginia    Transfer 

88.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Neiman-  Co.,  140  N.  Y.  Supp.  1055. 

Marcus  Co..  227  U.  S.  469,  33  Sup.  Ct,  Where   one    shipped    his   trunk    by 

267   57  L.  Ed.  — .  express  and  agreed  to  pay  a  specified 


474 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


riage  are  not  sufficient  to  release  a  carrier  from  negligence,  but, 
if  such  a  result  is  intended,  it  must  be  expressly  provided  for; 
and  hence,  where  a  bill  of  lading  in  a  shipment  of  glass  contained 
a  condition  that  defendant  would  not  be  liable  for  damages  to 
glass  by  breakage  or  for  any  cause,  if  it  should  be  necessary  or 
was  usual  to  carry  such  property  upon  open  cars,  and  the  words 
"  Loaded  and  secured  by  shipper,  released,"  were  written  upon 
the  face  of  it,  the  defendant's  liability  for  negligence  remained 
unaffected.^^  An  express  contract,  attempting  to  limit  a  carrier's 
liability  to  fifty  dollars  in  case  the  value  of  the  property  is  not 
stated  in  the  receipt,  being  unenforceable,  as  contrary  to  the  public 
policy  of  Georgia,  it  was  not  material  that  the  form  of  receipt  was 
filled  out  by  the  consignor  for  the  signature  of  the  carrier's  agent.'* 
A  common  carrier  cannot  limit  its  liability  by  any  notice  given 
either  by  publication  or  by  entry  on  receipts  or  by  tickets  sold, 
but  may  make  an  express  contract  releasing  it  from  liability  not 


fii'.m  for  the  expressage  when  deliv- 
ered at  his  residence,  and  there  waa 
nothing  to  show  that  he  was  about  to 
become  .%  passenger  of  the  carrier,  the 
shipment  was  one  of  express  freight, 
binding  him,  in  the  absence  of  fraud 
or  imposition,  to  the  printed  receipt 
given  him  limiting  the  carrier's  lia- 
bility to  a  specified  sum.  Baum  v. 
Long  Island  R.  R.,  108  N.  Y.  Supp. 
1113,  58  Misc.  Rep.  34. 

An  express  receipt,  limiting  the  lia- 
bility of  the  carrier  to  a  specified 
amount,  constitutes  the  contract  of 
the  parties,  and  operates  to  limit  the 
liability.  Clark  v.  Martin,  135  N.  Y. 
Supp.  664. 

91.  Brewster  v.  New  York  Cent., 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  N.  Y.  Supp.  368,  145 
App.  Div.   51. 

92.  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Chamber- 
lin-Johnson-Du  Bose  Co.,  138  Ga.  455, 
75  S.  E.  601. 


Where  a  jeweler  in  New  York  de- 
livered to  an  express  company  a  ring 
for  shipment  to  plaintiff  in  Georgia, 
and  the  carrier's  agent,  in  signing  the 
jeweler's  receipt  book,  stamped  there- 
on, "  Value  asked  and  not  given," 
without  in  fact  asking  whether  the 
jeweler  desired  to  value  the  package, 
plaintiflf's  recovery  for  loss  of  the 
ring  through  the  carrier's  negligence 
was  not  limited  to  $50,  as  provided 
in  the  receipt.  Adams  Express  Co.  v. 
Mellichamp,  138  Ga.  443,  75  S.  E. 
596. 

The  mere  insertion  in  a  printed 
form  of  receipt  used  by  an  express 
company,  of  terms  limiting  its  liabil- 
ity, and  the  delivery  of  the  receipt  to 
a  shipper,  does  not  constitute  an  ex- 
press contract  limiting  the  company's 
liability  as  carrier.  Southern  Ex- 
press Co.  V.  Hanaw,  134  Ga.  445,  67 
S.  E.  944. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  475 

arising  from  its  negligence.*^  While  a  carrier's  common-law  lia- 
bility cannot  be  limited  by  conditions  expressed  in  a  mere  notice 
to  the  shipper  or  to  the  general  public,  nor  by  the  terms  of  a 
receipt  for  the  goods,  or  where  the  conditions  are  printed  on  the 
back  of  the  bill  cf  lading  or  stamped  across  its  face,  yet  conditions 
printed  or  written  oh  the  face  and  in  the  body  of  the  bill  will  be 
presumed  to  have  been  assented  to  and  to  form  part  of  a  valid, 
enforceable  contract,  where  the  consignor  receives  the  bill  and 
ships  the  goods  without  complaint,  if  such  conditions  are  not  in- 
imical to  law.**  Mere  acceptance  by  a  shipper,  without  objection, 
of  a  bill  of  lading  tendered  by  the  common  carrier,  containing  a 
stipulation  importing  limitation  of  liability  on  an  assumed  valua- 
tion of  goods,  not  corresponding  with  their  real  value,  raises  a 
presumption  that  the  shipper  knew  of  the  restriction  and  would  be 
bound  thereby,  but  it  is  not  conclusive  against  the  shipper  and 
such  presumption  may  be  rebutted  by  evidence  negativing  knowl- 
edge and  assent.*^  A  carrier  cannot  limit  its  common-law  liability 
safely  to  deliver  consigned  property  at  the  place  of  destination  by 
any  limitation  expressed  in  its  receipt  for  the  property.®^  But 
the  statutory  inhibition  against  limitations  of  liability  by  a  car- 
rier in  a  receipt  does  not  apply  to  bills  of  lading ;  such  limitations 

93.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v,  City  constitute   such    an    express    contract 

Mills  Co.,  128  Ga.  841,  58  S.  E.  197.  as  would  relieve  the  carrier  from  lia- 

A    general    limitation    as    to    the  bility,    and   was   not   binding   on   the 

value,  expressed  in  a  bill   of   lading,  shipper  or  owner.     Atlantic  Compress 

which   is   clearly   nothing  more  than  Co.  v.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.,  135  Ga. 

an    arbitrary    preadjustment    of    the  140,    68    S.    E.    1038;    Seaboard    Air 

measure  of  damages  in  case  of  loss,  Line   Ry.   v.   Atlantic   Compress    Co., 

will  not  exempt  the  carrier  from  lia-  135  Ga.  413,  69  S.  E.  566. 
bility   for  the   true   value  of   a   ship-  94.   Inman  &   Co.  v.   Seaboard   Air 

ment  lost  by  its  negligence.     Central  Line  Ry.  Co.,  159  Fed.  960   (U.  S.  C. 

of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Butler  Marble  &  C,   Ga.)  ;    Inman   &   Co.   v.   Atlantic 

Granite  Co.,  8  Ga.  App.  1,  68  b.  E.  Coast  Line  R.  Co.,  id. 
775.  95.  Hill  V.  Adams  Express  Co.  (Err. 

A  condition  in  a  receipt  or  bill  of  &    App.,    N.    J.),    81    Atl.    859,    affg. 

lading  given  by  a  carrier  to  a  com-  judg.  80  N.  J.  Law,  604,  77  Atl.  1073. 
press  company,  exempting  the  carrier  96.  Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v.    John 

from  liability  for  loss  by  fire,  did  not  Anda  Co.,   131  111.  App.  426. 


476 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


may  properly  be  inserted  in  bills  of  lading.^  If  a  bill  of  lading 
has  printed  upon  the  back  thereof  certain  conditions,  compliance 
with  such  conditions  is  not  essential  to  the  right  of  the  shipper 
to  enforce  the  common-law  liability  of  the  carrier.^'  Where  an 
express  receipt  provided  that  the  rate  was  based  on  the  value  of 
the  property,  which  must  be  declared  by  the  shipper,  a  provision 
that  unless  a  greater  value  was  declared  the  shipper  agreed  that 
the  value  of  the  property  was  not  more  than  fifty  dollars,  and  that 
the  carrier  should  not  be  liable  for  a  greater  amount,  was  not 
objectionable  as  limiting  the  carrier's  liability  for  negligence,  but 
was  reasonable  and  binding  on  the  shipper.^^  Where,  after  the 
loss  of  goods  while  in  the  possession  of  a  carrier,  it  executed  and 
sent  to  the  shipper  a  bill  of  lading  limiting  the  carrier's  liability 
as  a  matter  of  convenience  for  the  purpose  of  identifying  the 
property  lost,  the  shipper's  receipt  of  such  bill  did  not  limit  the 
carrier's  common-law  liability.^  In  the  absence  of  statutory  regu- 
lation, where  no  receipt  is  given  by  the  carrier  at  the  time  of  ship- 
ment, it  cannot  limit  its  liability  by  afterwards  delivering  to  the 
shipper  a  receipt  containing  a  limited  liability  clause,  if  the  ship- 
per had  no  knowledge  that  the  carrier  claimed  any  such  limita- 
tions at  the  time  of  shipment.^  Where  an  express  receipt  recited 
that  the  carrier  agreed  to  carry  the  articles  on  the  following  terms 
and  conditions,  to  which  the  shipper  agreed,  and  as  evidence 
thereof  accepted  the  bill  of  lading,  such  acceptance  constituted 
the  shipper's  assent  to  a  clause  that  the  carrier  should  not  be  liable 
for  loss  or  damage  to  the  goods,  unless  suit  was  commenced  within 

97.   Illinois  Match   Co.   v.   ChicagS,  also  holding  that  the  Michigan  stat- 

etc.   Ry.  Co.,  153  111.  App.  568.  ute  does  not  change  the  common-law 

98    Painkinsky  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  liability  of  carriers,  and  that  the  mere 

Co.,  165  111.  App.  556.  failure  of  a  shipper  to  demand  a  re- 

99.  De  Wolff  V.  Adams  Express  Co.,  ceipt    containing    a    limited    liability 

106  Md.  472,  67  Atl.  1099.  clause  did  not  relieve  the  carrier  from 

1.  McGregor  v.   Oregon  R.  &  Nav.  the  obligation  of  giving  such  receipt 
Co     50  Or.  527,  93  Pac.  465.  in  case  it  desired  to  limit  its  common- 

2.  Farnsworth  v.  National  Express  law  liability,  etc. 
Co.,   166  Mich.   676,   132   N.  W.   441, 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  477 

a  year  thereafter.'  Where  the  published  tariff  provides  two  rates, 
one  with  the  carrier's  ordinary  liability,  and  the  other  a  lesser  rate, 
by  reason  of  liability  being  limited,  and  the  shipper  makes  no 
selection  of  rate,  it  is  proper  for  the  carrier  to  elect  which  rate 
shall  apply,  but  a  bill  of  lading  showing  the  limited  liability  must 
be  executed  and  delivered  at  the  time  the  carrier  accepts  the  ship- 
ment, or  promptly  mailed  in  due  course  of  business,  before  a  loss 
occurs,  and  the  carrier  cannot  wait  until  after  the  goods  have  been 
destroyed,  and  then  choose  to  make  a  low  rate,  with  a  limited 
liability,  apply  to  the  shipment.^  Where  cotton  had  been  delivered 
to  a  railroad  company  and  accepted  for  shipment,  that  the  bills 
of  lading,  which  were  prepared  by  the  shipper  and  presented  to 
the  company's  agent  for  signing,  but  had  not  been  signed  before  the 
cotton  was  destroyed  by  fire,  exempted  the  company  from  liability 
for  loss  by  fire,  would  not  prevent  a  recovery  of  the  value  of  the 
cotton,  as  the  company's  liability  did  not  depend  upon  the  un- 
delivered bill  of  lading,  but  upon  acceptance  of  the  cotton  for 
transportation.^ 

§  23.  Limitation  of  time  in  which  to  bring  suit. 

A  limitation  of  the  time  of  suit  for  loss  or  damage  to  goods 
transported,  contained  in  a  bill  of  lading,  is  not  invalid  on  the 
mere  ground  that  it  contravenes  the  statute  of  limitations.*  And 
the  fact  that  a  statute  prohibits  a  carrier  from  limiting  its  common- 
law  liability  by  contract  does  not  render  such  a  stipulation  invalid.' 
Stipulations  in  the  contracts  of  carriers  limiting  the  time  within 
which  suit  must  be  brought  have  been  held  valid  by  the  courts 
when  the  period  of  time  fixed  is  reasonable  under  the  circumstances 
of  the  particular  case.*    It  has  been  held  to  be  generally  a  question 

3.  Ingram  v.  Weir.  166  Fed.  328.  6.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.  v.  Soper, 

4.  Harris    v.    Great    Northern    Ry.      59  Fed.  879,  8  C.  C.  A.  341. 

Co.,  48  Wash.  437,  96  Pac.  224.  7.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trawick.  63 

5.  Texas   Midland   R.   R.   v.   H.   L.      Tex.  314.  2  Am.  St.  Rep.  494,  30  Am. 
Fdwards  &  Co.   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  121      &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  49. 

S.  W.  570.  8.   Southern   Express  Co.   v.   Caper- 


478 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


for  tho  jury.'  Similar  clauses  in  policies  of  insurance  are  held 
valid/"  Likewise  in  contracts  of  telegraph  companies  and  for  like 
considerations."  The  object  of  such  a  clause,  like  one  requiring 
claim  to  be  presented  or  notice  of  loss  given  within  a  specified 
time,  is  to  enable  the  carrier  to  search  for  the  missing  goods  or 
find  out  the  true  cause  of  the  loss  or  injury;  finding  the  missing 
goods,  it  may  either  deliver  them  to  the  consignee,  or  redeliver 
them  to  the  shipper;  failing  to  discover  the  goods,  it  can  place 
the  responsibility  for  the  loss  where  it  properly  belongs  and  seek 
indemnity  from  the  persons  guilty  of  the  wrong;  finding  the  real 
facts  as  to  the  loss  or  injury  it  may  be  in  a  position  to  defend 
itself  where  lapse  of  time  might  have  deprived  it  of  all  facilities 
for  ascertaining  the  true  cause  of  the  loss  or  injury.  The  law 
recognizes  that  the  purpose  is  reasonable  and  just  and  hence  sus- 
tains the  validity  of  such  clauses  when  the  time  and  conditions 
are  reasonable  under  all  the  circumstances.^"     Under  a  statute  in 


ton,  44  Ala.  101,  4  Am.  Rep.  118; 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v,  Burgin, 
83  Ark.  502,  104  S.  W.  151,  where 
based  on  a  reduced  rate;  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Klepper  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
24  S.  W.  567,  a  reduced  rate  of  freight 
was  held  sufficient  consideration  to 
support  a  limitation  to  forty  days; 
McCarty  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Tex. 
33;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCarty,  82 
Tex.  608;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  32  S.  W.  323;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Gatewood,  79  Tex.  89; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Clarke,  5  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  547.  See  also,  Ridlesbarger  v. 
Hartford  Ins.  Co.,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
386;  Cray  v.  Hartford  F.  Ins.  Co.,  1 
Blatchf.    (U.  S.)   280. 

9.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hawkins 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  30  S.  W.  1113. 

10.  Wilkinson  v.  First  Nat.  Fire 
Ins.  Co.,  72  N.  Y.  499;  Steen  v.  Ni- 
agara Fire  Ins.  Co.,  89  N.  Y.  315. 


11.  Young  V.  Western  Union  Tel. 
Co.,  1  Am.  Electl.  Cas.  187,  34  N.  Y. 
Super.  Ct.  390,  65  N.  Y.  165;  Cole  v. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  1  Am.  Electl. 
Cas.  707,  33  Minn.  227,  22  N.  W. 
385 ;  Wolf  V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 
62  Pa.  St.  83,  1  Am.  Rep.  387;  Hill 
V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  3  Am. 
Electl.  Cas.  614,  85  Ga.  425,  21  Am. 
St.  Rep.  166,  30  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp. 
Cas.  590;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Brown,  84  Tex.  54. 

12.  Security  Trust  Co.  v.  Wells, 
Fargo  &  Co.  Express,  178  N.  Y.  620; 
81  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  426,  80  N.  Y. 
Supp.  830;  N&rth  British,  etc.,  Ins. 
Co.  V.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.,  158 
N.  Y.  726,  53  N.  E.  1128,  affg.  judg. 
40  N.  Y.  Supp.  1113,  9  App.  Div.  4; 
Kaiser  v.  Hoey,  1  N.  Y.  Supp.  429; 
Hirschberg  v.  Dinsmore,  12  Daly  (N. 
Y.).  429;  Southern  Express  Co.  v. 
Caldwell,  21  Wall.  (U.  S.)  264;  Mar- 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  479 

Texas  no  such  stipulation  is  valid  which  limits  the  time  in  which 
suits  may  be  brought  to  less  than  two  years  and  the  statute  does 
not  apply  to  interstate  commerce.^^  Nor  will  the  shipper  be  pre- 
cluded from  bringing  suit  after  the  expiration  of  the  time  limited, 
where  he  was  induced  to  delay  action  by  the  fraud  or  misrepre- 
sentation of  the  carrier."  Upon  the  same  principle  it  is  held  in 
New  York  that  a  shipping  receipt  limiting  the  liability  of  a  car- 
rier to  claims  presented  within  a  fixed  time  does  not  relieve  it  of 
liability  for  a  wrongful  delivery,  though  the  claim  was  not  pre- 
sented as  soon  as  the  consignor  discovered  the  fraud."  Such  a 
sented  as  soon  as  the  consignor  discovered  the  fraul."  Such  a 
stipulation  will  be  waived  by  the  carrier's  agreement,  after  exam- 
ining into  the  alleged  injury,  to  pay  a  fixed  sum  in  satisfaction 
of  the  injury,  and  recovery  may  be  had  for  the  amount  so  agreed 
upon.^^  Under  Texas  Rev.  St.  1895,  art.  3378,  rendering  invalid 
contracts  shortening  the  period  of  limitations  to  less  than  two 
years,  a  stipulation  in  a  contract  of  carriage  that  suit  must  be 
brought  within  two  years  is  invalid.^^  The  shipper  and  the  carrier 
of  an  interstate  shipment  are  not  forbidden  to  stipulate  that  an 
action  for  damages  to  shipment  must  be  brought  within  ninety 

ni8  V.  New  Haven  Steamboat  Co.,  30  App.),   26   S.  W.   636;    Gulf,  etc.,   R. 

Misc.    Rep.    (N.   Y.)    421,    62    N.   Y.  Co.  v.  Stanley,   33   S.  W.   110;    Gulf, 

Supp.  474;   St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hume,  87  Tex.  211. 

Hurst,  67  Ark.  407;  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  14.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Kel- 

Co.  V.  Reeves,  97  Va.  284;  Cleveland,  ley   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  26  S.  W.  470: 

etc.,   R.   Oo.   V.   Newlin,   74   111.   App.  Galveston,    etc.,    R.   Co.   v.    Silegmau 

638;    Cox   v.   Vermont   Cent.   R.   Co.,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  23  S.  W.  298;  Gulf, 

170  Mass.  129,  49  N.  E.  97;  Popham  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trawick,  supra. 

V.   Barnard,   77  Mo.  App.   619;    Chi-  15.  Security    Trust    Co.    v.    Wells, 

cago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bozarth,  91   111.  Fargo  &  Co.  Express,  supra. 

App.  68.  16.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ▼.  Katzen- 

13.  Southern    Kansas    Ry.    Co.    of  bach,  118  Ind.  174,  38  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

Texas  v.   J.   W.   Burgess    Co.     (Tex.  Cas.  375;    International,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

Civ.  App.),  90  S.  W.  189;   St.  Louis,  v.  Underwood,  62  Tex.  21,  21  Am.  & 

etc.,   R.    Co.   V.   Williams    (Tex.   Civ.  Eng.  R.  Cas.  143. 

App.),  32  S.  W.  225;  Reeves  v.  Texas,  17.  Texas  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Langbehn 

etc.,  R.  Co..,  11  Tex.  Civ.  App.  514;  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  158  S.  W.  244. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Elliott   (Tex.  Civ. 


^gQ  THE  LAW  OF  CAKRIEKS. 

clajs  bj  tlie  Carmnck  Amendment  June  29,  190G,  §  7,  to  Act  Feb. 
4,  18S7,  §  20/^  Where  a  shipping  contract  limits  the  time  within 
which  an  action  for  loss  of  goods  must  be  brought,  such  time  must 
be  reasonable,  and  there  must  be  prompt  action  on  the  part  of  the 
carrier  in  denying  its  liability,  so  that  the  shipper  may  be  duly 
appraised  of  the  fact  that  suit  will  be  necessary/*  Where  a  con- 
tract of  carriage  provides  that  suit  shall  be  brought  upon  it  only 
within  six  months  after  a  cause  of  action  shall  accrue,  and  the 
giving  of  notice  within  a  fixed  time  be  a  condition  precedent,  the 
six  months  do  not  begin  to  run  until  notice  is  given.'^'*  A  pro- 
vision of  a  bill  of  lading  that  the  carrier  should  not  be  liable  in 
any  suit  to  recover  for  loss  or  damage  to  the  property,  unless  suit 
was  brought  within  one  year,  was  reasonable.^^ 

§  24.  Requirement  of  notice  of  loss  or  presentation  of  claim 
within  fixed  time. 
The  carrier  may  lawfully,  by  contract  with  the  shipper  made 
by  clause  or  stipulation  in  the  bill  of  lading  or  shipping  receipt 
or  otherwise,  provide  a  reasonable  time  within  which  the  shipper 
shall  present  his  claim  or  give  notice  of  claim  for  loss  or  damage, 
and  the  manner  of  giving  such  notice  or  presenting  his  claim,  and 
limit  its  liability  to  cases  in  which  the  claim  shall  be  presented 
or  notice  given  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  contract.^ 

18.  Missouri,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Harri-  22.  N.  Y.— Osterhoudt  v.  Southern 
manBros.,  227  U.  S.  657,  33  Sup.  Ct.  Pac.  Co.,  47  App.  Div.  (N.  Y. )  146, 
397,  57  L.  Ed.  .  62    N.    Y.    Supp.    134;     Jennings    v. 

19.  Lasky  v.  Southern  Express  Co.,  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  127  N.  Y.  438, 
92  Miss.  268,  45  So.  869.  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  98;  Kaiser  v. 

Stipulations   made  on  the  back  of  Hoey,  1  N.  Y.  Supp.  429. 

shipping  contracts  limiting  the  time  Ark.— St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

for  bringing  actions  for  losses  can  be  Hurst,  67  Ark.  407,  55  S.  W.  215. 

upheld  only  on  the  ground  that  they  Do/b.— Hartwell    v.    Northern    Pac. 

reasonable     regulations,     rather  Express  Co.,  5  Dak.  463,  stipulation 


are 


than  contracts  in  the  true  sense.     Id.  valid  when  signed  by  shipper. 

20.  Chicago,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  James,  7H.— Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co,    v.    Bo- 
81  Kan.  23?  105  Pac.  40.  zarth,  91  HI.  App.  68;   Black  v.  Wa- 

21.  Ingram  v.  Weir,  166  Fed.  328.  bash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  111.  351,  53  Am. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  43]l 

Such  agreements  are  not  against  the  policy  of  the  law  and  of  the 


Eep.  628,  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  388 ; 
Ooles  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 
111.  App.  607;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Simms,  18  111.  App.  68. 

Ind. — United  States  Express  Co.  v. 
Harris,  51  Ind.  129;  Adams  Express 
Co.  V.  Reagan,  29  Ind.  21,  93  Am. 
Dec.  332;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ragsdale,  14  Ind.  App.  406;  Case  v. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Ind.  App. 
517.  Delivery  of  a  shipment  of  goods 
at  the  wrong  place  without  fault  of 
the  consignor  constitutes  a  conversion 
which  deprives  the  carrier  of  an  ex- 
emption from  liability  by  the  con- 
signor's failure  to  present  a  verified 
claim  for  damages  within  10  days. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  C-  &  A. 
Potts  &  Co.  (Ind.  App.),  71  N.  E. 
685. 

Kan. — ^Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mor- 
ris, 65  Kan.  532,  70  Pac.  651; 
Sprague  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  34 
Kan.  347,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  684 ; 
Goggin  V.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  12 
Kan.  416. 

Ky. — Owen  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  87  Ky.  626. 

Minn. — Armstrong  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  53  Minn.  183. 

Miss. — Southern  Express  Co.  v. 
Hunnicutt,  54  Miss.  566,  28  Am.  Rep. 
385. 

Mo. — Dawson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  76  Mo.  514;  Rice  v.  Kansas  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  63  Mo.  314,  20  Am.  Ry.  Rep. 
424;  D.  Klass  Commission  Co.  v.  Wa- 
bash R.  Co.,  80  Mo.  App.  164,  2  Mo. 
App.  Rep.  545,  but  a  clause  in  a  con- 
tract of  carriage,  requiring  the  ship- 
per to  give  five  days'  notice  of  his 
-«laim  for  loss  and  damage,  does  not 

31 


apply  to  loss  occurring  through  tho 
carriers'  failure  to  deliver  the  goods 
in  a  reasonable  time,  but  to  injury 
during  shipment. 

Where  a  contract  of  shipment  pro- 
vided that  all  claims  for  damages  by 
the  consignee  must  be  reported  in 
writing  to  the  delivering  line  within 
36  hours  after  he  has  been  notified  of 
the  arrival  of  the  freight,  failure  to 
give  the  notice  will  not  defeat  his 
right  to  recover  for  goods  lost  in 
transit,  since  notice  of  their  arrival 
could  not  have  been  given,  and  writ- 
ten notice  will  be  waived;  the  car- 
rier having  acted  on  the  verbal  notice 
of  the  consignee  that  the  goods  were 
lost,  and  delegated  a  claim  agent  to 
search  for  them.  Ward  v.  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  158  Mo.  226,  58  S.  W.  28. 

N.  C. — Wood  V.  Southern  R.  Co., 
118  N.  C.  1056;  Capehart  v.  Sea- 
board, etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  N.  C.  355.  A 
clause  in  a  bill  of  lading  releasing  the 
carrier  from  liability  for  loss  or  dam- 
age of  the  goods  if  notice  is  not  pre- 
sented in  VFriting  within  30  days  after 
the  delivery  thereof,  or  after  due  time 
for  such  delivery,  is  unreasonable  and 
void.  Gwyn  Harper  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Caro- 
lina Cent  R.  Co.,  128  N.  C.  280,  38 
S.  E.  894. 

Pa. — Pavitt  V.  Lehigh  Valley  R. 
Co.,  153  Pa.  St.  302;  Weir  v.  Adams 
Express  Co.,  5  Phila.    (Pa.)    355. 

Tenn. — Southern  Express  Co.  v. 
Glenn  16  Lea  (Tenn.),  472. 

Tex. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trawick, 
68  Tex.  314,  2  Am.  St.  Rep.  494,  30 
Am.  &,  Eng.  R.  Cas.  49. 

U.  8. — Southern  Express  Co.  v. 
Caldwell,  21  Wall.   (U.  S.)    264. 


482 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


right  to  make  conditions  of  this  character  there  is  now  no  question. 
They  do  not  relieve  carriers  from  any  part  of  their  obligation  as 
common  carriers.  As  such  they  are  bound  to  the  same  diligence, 
fidelity  and  care  as  they  would  be  required  to  exercise  if  no  such 
stipulation  had  been  made.  All  that  the  stipulation  requires  is 
that  the  shipper  shall  make  his  claim  in  season  to  enable  the 
carrier  to  ascertain  the  facts,  and  it  specifies  what  that  time  shall 
be.  The  only  question  that  can  arise  is  as  to  whether  the  condition 
is  a  reasonable  one  with  reference  to  the  circumstances  of  any 
particular  case.  Such  contracts  when  the  time  and  conditions 
are  not  unreasonable  are  universally  upheld  by  the  courts,  and 
the  right  to  recover  on  a  claim  for  loss  or  damage  will  be  barred, 
if  the  conditions  of  the  contract  are  not  complied  with.^^  That  a 
shipping  contract  required  a  presentation  of  claims  within  an  un- 
reasonably short  time,  however,  does  not  relieve  the  shipper  from 


Eng. — Lewis  v.  Great  Western  R. 
Co.,  5  H.  &  N.  867,  29  L.  J.  Exch. 
425 ;  Simons  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co., 
18  Q.  B.  805,  86  E.  C.  L.  805;  Moore 
V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  8  Ir. 
95;  Nicholson  v.  Willan,  5  East  507. 

(7o„.__Grand  Trunk  R.  Oo.  v.  Mc- 
Millan, 16  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  543,  42  Ana. 
&  Eng.  R.  Oas.  468;  Kyle  v.  Buffalo, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,   16  U.  C.   C.  P.   76. 

Contra. — Southern  Express  Co.  V. 
Tupleo  Bank,   108  Ala.   517. 

Connecting  lines. — Where  the  con- 
tract requires  notice  to  the  carrier  at 
the  destination  of  the  goods,  and  the 
goods  are  sent  over  several  lines,  the 
shipper  or  consignee  is  not  bound  to 
give  notice  to  the  initial  carrier  at 
the  point  where  the  goods  left  its 
line.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  Grant, 
6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  674;  Wichita,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Koch,  47  Kan.  753,  55  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  452. 

23.  Osterhoudt  v.  Southern  Pac. 
Co.,  supra;  Jennings  v.  Grand  Trunk 


R.  Co.,  supra;  Browning  v.  Long 
Island  R.  Co.,  2  Daly  (N.  Y.),  117; 
Central  Vermont  R.  Co.  v.  Soper,  59 
Fed.  879,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  151; 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Reagan,  su- 
pra; Goggin  V.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co., 
supra;  Pacific  Express  Oo.  v.  Darnell 
(Tex.),  6  S.  W.  765;  Harned  v.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.,  51  Mo.  App.  482; 
Sanford  v.  Housatonic  R.  Co.,  11 
Cush.  (Mass.)  155;  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Oo.  V.  Hurst,  supra. 

That  the  question  of  reasonable- 
ness of  the  time  limit  is  for  the  jury 
;has  been  held  in  several  Texas  cases: 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co,  v.  Adams,  78  Tex. 
372,  22  Am.  St.  Rep.  56;  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Oo.  V.  Barber  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),. 
30  S.  W.  500;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wright,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  402.  Also 
whether  the  contract  is  one  for  an  in- 
terstate or  domestic  shipment.  Inter- 
national, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Garrett,  5 
Tex.  CiT.  App.  540. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


483 


presenting  his  claims  within  a  reasonable  time.^*  Such  stipula- 
tions may  be  waived  by  the  carrier.^^  And  where  the  shipper  has 
been  prevented  from  or  delayed  in  filing  a  claim  for  the  goods 
within  the  time  prescribed,  by  the  carrier's  falsely  informing  him 
that  the  goods  were  still  in  its  possession  and  would  be  returned, 
or  by  the  carrier's  promising  to  find  the  goods,  or  by  similar 
representations,  the  carrier  is  estopped  from  pleading  the  condi- 
tion in  the  bill  of  lading  or  shipping  receipt  as  a  defense  to  the 
action.^^  Such  a  condition  of  a  contract  of  shipment  applies  to 
the  carrier's  conduct  as  a  warehouseman  since  such  relation  is 
properly  incident  to  that  of  carrier,^^  Most  of  the  authorities 
sustain  such  stipulations  even  where  the  loss  is  one  caused  by  the 
defendant  company's  negligence.^^  In  Texas  such  a  stipulation 
is  held  to  be  a  limitation  of  the  common  law  liability  of  the  car- 
rier and  of  no  effect  where  the  loss  is  one  resulting  from  the 
carrier's  negligence.^*     In  Isew  York  such  a  stipulation  is  held 


24.  Osterhoudt  v.  Southern  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  supra;  Matthews  v.  American 
Cent.  Ins.  Co.,  154  N.  Y.  449,  48  N. 
E.   751,  39   L.  R.  A.  433. 

25.  Pavitt  V.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co., 
153  Pa.  St.  302;  Wood  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,  118  N.  C,  1056;  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
do.  V.  Brown,  152  IlL  484;  Interna- 
tional, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Underwood,  62 
Tex.  21,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  143; 
Hess  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  40  Mo. 
App.  202;  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Pickett, 
87  Ga.  734,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
337;  Hudson  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
92  Iowa,  231;  Bennett  v.  Northern 
Pac.  Express  Co.,  12  Or.  49;  Rice  v. 
Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  63  Mo.  314,  20 
Am.  "Ry.  Pi-ep.  424 ;  Merrill  v.  Ameri- 
can Express  Co.,  62  N.  H.  514. 

26.  Marrus  v.  New  Haven  Steam- 
boat Co.,  30  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  421, 
62  N.  Y.  Supp.  474;  Security  Trust 
Co.   V.   Wells,   Fargo   &   Co.   Express, 


supra;  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hol- 

loway,  9  Baxt.  (Tenn.)  188.  Or 
where  the  plaintiff  is  induced  to  post- 
pone action  by  pretended  offers  of 
compromise,  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gate- 
wood,  79  Tex.  89.  A  person  who,  on 
delivery  of  goods  to  a  carrier,  accepts 
a  paper  that  "  amounts  simply  to  a 
voucher,"  which  he  may  use  to  iden- 
tify his  goods,  he  having  no  notieo 
that  it  contains  limitations  of  the 
carrier's  liability  or  other  special  con- 
tract, is  not  bound  by  such  limita- 
tions. Strong  V.  Long  Island  R.  Co., 
91  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  442,  86  N.  Y. 
Supp.   911. 

27.  Armstrong  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  53  Minn.  183,  54  N.  W.  1059. 

28.  See  cases  already  cited  under 
this   section. 

29.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Harris, 
67  Tex.  166,  28  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas! 
108. 


484  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

not  to  be  in  the  nature  of  a  condition  precedent  to  the  plaintiff's 
right  to  recover  but  rather  of  the  nature  of  a  statute  of  limitations, 
which  should  be  set  up  in  the  defendant's  answer.^"*  The  time 
specified  in  such  a  stipulation  begins  to  run  and  is  to  be  reckoned, 
not  from  the  day  when  the  loss  occurs,  or  when  it  has  been  reported 
that  the  goods  are  lost  and  the  carrier  is  endeavoring  to  trace  them, 
but  from  the  day  when  their  actual  loss  is  ascertained  and  the 
effort  to  trace  them  has  been  abandoned.^^ 

§  25.  To  what  damages  stipulation  does  not  apply. 

A  stipulation  or  clause  in  a  contract  of  shipment  providing  that, 
should  loss  or  damages  of  any  kind  occur  to  the  property  while  in 
the  possession  of  the  carrier,  the  shipper  shall  within  a  specified 
number  of  days  give  notice  in  writing  or  present  his  claim  to  the 
carrier  as  a  condition  of  the  latter's  liability  for  such  loss  or 
damage,  does  not  extend  to  damages  accruing  from  change  of 
market  during  a  delay  to  deliver.^^  Such  a  stipulation  has  no 
application  where  the  carrier  was,  of  necessity,  aware  of  the  loss 
and  its  extent,  as  where  the  claim  is  for  damages  caused  by  the 
negligent  delay  of  the  carrier's  agent  in  forwarding  the  goods 
from  the  point  of  shipment,^^  or  where  there  has  been  no  actual 
delivery,^*  or  where  the  injury  to  the  goods  or  live  stock  was 
examined  by  the  carrier's  agent  in  person  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining its  extent.^  Such  a  stipulation  does  not  apply  to  damages 
which  accrued  prior  to  the  making  of  the  contract,^*  or  to  a  claim 

30.  Westcott  V.  Fargo,  61  N.  Y.  Oiv.  Oas.  §  100;  Steel©  v.  Grand 
542,  19  Am.  Rep.  300.  Trunk  R.  Co.,  31  U.  C.  C.  P.  260. 

31.  Gborraley  v.  Dinsmore,  51  N.  34.  Porter  v.  Southern  Express  Co., 
Y.  Super.  Ot.  196 ;  Wilson  v.  Wabash,  4  S.  C.  135,  16  Am.  Rep.  762 :  Cen- 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Mo.  App.  50.  tral  R.  Oo.  v.  Pickett  87  Ga.  734,  55 

32.  Leonard    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  337. 

Co.,  54  Mo.  App.  293.  35.  Harned     v.     Missouri    Pac.    R. 

33.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tern-  Co.,  51  Mo.  App.  482;  Richardson  v. 
pie,  47  Kan.  7;  Baltimore,  etc.,  Ex-  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Mo.  App.  Rep. 
press  Co.  v.  Cooper,  66  Miss.  558,  14  401;  Owen  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
Am.  St.  Rep.  586,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  87  Ky.  626. 

Cas.  97;  Cross  v.  Graves,  4  Tex.  App.         36.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Graves 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  435 

for  the  value  of  a  portion  of  a  shipment  of  goods  not  delivered.^' 
It  will  not  be  enforced  unless  its  terms  afford  to  the  shipper  a 
reasonable  opportunity  to  present  his  claims.^^  Under  the  Texas 
statute  prohibiting  a  railroad  company  or  other  common  carrier 
from  limiting  its  common  law  liability  by  special  contract,  it  has 
been  held  that  such  a  stipulation  is  valid,  it  not  being  a  limitation 
of  liability  contemplated  by  the  statute,  but  a  matter  affecting 
simply  the  shipper's  remedy.^^  Under  the  Dakota  statute  such  a 
stipulation  is  not  valid  unless  signed  by  the  shipper.*'*  Under  the 
Constitution  of  Kentucky  a  stipulation  requiring  such  notice  is 
invalid/^ 

§  26.  Limitation  of  liability  as  ground  of  defense — Pleading. 

A  common  carrier,  to  avail  itself  of  the  stipulation  of  a  bill  of 
lading  as  a  modification  of  its  common  law  liability  for  loss  of  or 
injury  to  the  goods  of  another  while  in  its  charge,  must  specially 
plead  such  stipulation  as  a  defense.*^  Where  a  carrier  seeks  to 
escape  responsbiility  for  loss  or  injury  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
within  the  exception  provided  by  a  special  contract,  the  contract 
itself  must  be  specifically  pleaded  and  proved.*^     Where  suit  is 

(Tex.  App.),  16  S.  W.  102;  MeCarty  542,  19  Am.  Rep.  300;   Pennsylvania 

V.  Gulf,  eftc.,  R.  Co.,   79  Tex.  33,   15  Co.  v.  Yoder,  25  Ohio  C.  C.  R.  32. 

S.  W.  164.  43.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Cun- 

37.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ball,  ningham,  88  111.  App.  289;  Missouri 
80  Tex.  603,  16  S.  W.  441.  Pac.     R.     Co.    v.    Wichita    Wholesale 

38.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  Grocery  Co.,  55  Kan.  525;   Atchison, 

67  Tex.  166;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ditmars,  3  Kan.  App. 
Paine  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  21  S.  W.  78;  459;  Clyde  Steamship  Co.  v.  Bur- 
st.'Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Turner  (Tex.  rows,  36  Fla.  121;  Halliday  v.  St. 
Civ.  App.),  20  S.  W.  1008.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Mo.  159,  41  Am. 

39.  Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.  Trawick,  Rep.  311;  Oxiey  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R, 

68  Tex.  314,  2  Am.  St.  Rep.  494,  30  Co.,  65  Mo.  629;  Clark  v.  St.  Louis, 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  49.  etc.,   R.   Co.,    64   Mo.   447;    Atchison, 

40.  Hartwell  v.  Northern  Pac.  Ex-  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bryan  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)^ 
press  Co.,  5  Dak.  463.  28   S.   W.   98;    International,  etc.,   R. 

41.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tabor  Co.  v.  Moody,  71  Tex.  614,  35  Am.  & 
(Ky.),  32  S.  W.  168,  36  S.  W.  18.  Eng.  R.  Cas.  607. 

4a.  Westcott   V.    Fargo,    61    N.   Y. 


486  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

brought  on  a  special  contract  the  plaintiff  must  set  out  the  contract 
in  his  declaration.  But  if  he  sues  merely  for  breach  of  common 
law  duty,  the  carrier  must  plead  the  special  contract  in  order  to 
have  the  benefit  of  its  provisions." 

§  27.  Limitation  of  liability  as  ground  of  defense — Presumptions 
and  burden  of  proof. 
A  carrier  has  the  burden  of  showing  that  the  shipper  did  not 
comply  with  the  terms  of  the  contract  as  to  time  of  notice  of  loss 
or  damages  to  the  goods  transported.*^  It  must  allege  and  prove 
sufficient  facts  to  show  that  the  shipper  had  opportunity  to  give 
such  notice.*^  Such  a  contract  is  unreasonable  and  cannot  be 
enforced  unless  it  is  made  to  appear  that  the  person  to  be  notified 
is  so  conveniently  accessible  to  the  person  who  is  to  give  the  notice 
that  the  latter  can  reasonably  discharge  the  duty  within  the  time 
limited  by  the  contract  by  the  exercise  of  fair  diligence.*'  The 
carrier  is  required  to  prove  that  it  had  an  agent  or  officer  at  the 
place  of  destination  to  whom  the  notice  might  have  been  given  and 
in  the  absence  of  such  proof  the  stipulation  will  be  held  unreason- 
able and  void.*^     Such  stipulations  like  all  those  which  seek  to 

44.  Snow  V.  Indiana,  etc.,  R,  Co.,  Co.  v.  Childers  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  29 
109  Ind.  422,  28  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Caa.  S.  W.  559;  Engesether  v.  Great  Nor- 
77;  Tuggle  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  thern  R.  Co.  (Minn.),  68  N.  W.  4; 
&2  Mo.  425.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Short  (Tex. 

45.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hays,  Civ.  App.),  25  S.  W.  142;  St.  Louis, 
13  Tex.  Civ.  App.  577,  35  S.  W,  476.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Turner,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

46.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  625. 

88  Tex.  593,  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  48.  Galveston,     etc.,     R.     Oo.     v. 

S.  512,  33  S.  W,  510,  denying  writ  of  Boothe,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Cas.  §  363; 

error  in  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Oas.  N.  S.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Thompson 

487,  32  S.  W.  163.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  23  S.  W.  930;  Good 

47.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Painie,  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  (Tex.),  11 
1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  621,  21  S.  W.  78.  S.  W.  854,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  98; 
See  also,  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Har-  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams 
ris,  67  Tex.  167,  28  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  25  S.  W.  1019;  Mis- 
Oas.  107;  Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  souri  Pac.  R.  Oo,  v.  Oornw«ll,  70  Tex. 
Greathouse,   82   Tex.   104,   49   Am.  &  611. 

Eng.  R.  Cas.  157;   Missouri  Pac.  R. 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  14.87 

limit  a  right  of  action,  must  be  definite  in  order  to  be  effective. 
A  clause  which  provides  that  the  shipper  will  give  notice  "  to  some 
officer  "  of  the  carrier/'  or  that  a  claim  must  be  presented  within 
a  specified  time  "  in  order  to  receive  attention,"^"  is  too  vague  and 
uncertain  for  a  failure  to  present  a  claim  to  deprive  a  party  of  a 
right  of  action  and  will  be  held  void  for  uncertainty.  Compliance 
with  the  stipulation  is  a  condition  precedent  to  any  right  of  action, 
on  the  part  of  the  shipper/^  and  the  shipper  in  order  to  recover, 
must  show  such  compliance  with  the  stipulation  on  his  part,  or 
a  substantial  compliance  therewith.^^ 

§  28.  Stipulation  requiring  claim  to  be  made  before  removal  of 
the  goods. 
A  stipulation  or  condition  in  a  contract  of  shipment,  whether 
of  goods  or  live  stock,  at  special  rates,  that  the  shipper  will  give 
notice  in  writing  of  any  claim  for  loss  or  injury  to  the  goods  or 
stock,  to  an  officer  of  the  company  or  its  nearest  station  agent, 
before  removal  of  the  stock  or  goods  from  the  place  of  destination 
or  delivery  and  its  mingling  with  other  stock  or  goods,  is  not  un- 
reasonable, and  is  valid.^^  But  a  notice  within  such  reasonable 
time  after  removal  of  freight  as  secures  the  carrier  from  fraud  is 
sufficient  under  a  stipulation  that  the  shipper  must  give  written 
notice  before  removing  the  freight  from  the  place  of  delivery, 

49.  Smitha  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  47  Kan.  7,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R,  Oas.  337. 
Co.,  86  Tenn.  198.  53.  Selby   v.    Wilmington,    etc.,    R. 

50.  Dunn  v  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Oo.,  Co.,  113  N.  C.  588,  18  S,  E.  88,  37 
68  Mo.  268.  See  Sanford  v.  Housa-  Am.  St.  Rep.  635.  See  Capehart  v. 
tonic  R.  Co.,  11  Cush.   (Mass.)   155.  Seaboard,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  N.  C.  438, 

51.  Westcott  V.  Fargo,  61  N.  Y.  31  Am.  Rep.  505,  where  a  clause  re- 
542,  19  Am.  Rep.  300.  quiring  goods  to  be  examined  before 

52.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crit-  leaving  the  station,  a.s  applied  to  a 
tenden,  4  Kan.  App.  512;  Texas,  etc.,  oar  load  of  cotton,  was  held  to  be  in- 
R.  Oo.  V.  Jackson,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  §  valid  as  being  unreasonable.  See 
41;  Northern  Pac.  Express  Co.  v.  also.  Carriers  of  Live  Stock,  chap.  21, 
Martin,  26  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  135 ;  Harned  as  to  contracts  for  the  transporta- 
v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  51  Mo.  App.  tion  of  cattle  wherein  stipulations 
483;  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t.  Temple,  of  this  character  are  usually  found. 


4.88  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

if  he  could  not  discover  the  injury  before  removal.^^  A  provision. 
of  a  bill  of  lading  that  "  the  shipowner  is  not  to  be  liable  *  *  * 
for  any  claim,  notice  of  which  is  not  given  before  the  removal  of  • 
the  goods,"  even  if  conceded  to  be  unreasonable  and  void  as  to  the 
time  within  which  it  requires  the  notice  to  be  given,  is  valid,  and 
will  be  enforced  to  the  extent  of  requiring  notice  to  be  given,  and 
it  must  be  given  within  a  reasonable  time,  or  the  right  to  recover 
on  a  claim  for  damage  to  the  goods  will  be  barred.^^ 

§  29.  Limitation  of  liability  to  forwarder  or  warehouseman. 

A  carrier  may  agree  with  a  shipper  of  goods  that  the  liability  of 
the  carrier  from  the  time  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods  at  the  station 
or  port  at  their  place  of  destination,  shall  be  that  of  a  warehouse- 
man only,  and  such  stipulations  have  been  held  by  the  courts  to  be 
reasonable  and  valid.^^  A  carrier  may,  by  special  contract,  limit 
its  liability  for  goods  sent  C.  O.  D.,  while  in  its  possession  for 
purposes  of  collection  only,  to  that  of  a  warehouseman."  A  ship- 
ping receipt  limiting  the  liability  of  an  express  company  for  loss 
as  forwarders  only,  and  within  its  own  lines  of  communication, 
and  not  for  any  default  of  connecting  companies,  does  not  relieve 
it  of  liability  for  a  wrongful  delivery.^^  Where  a  carrier  ga\  e  a 
shipper  a  receipt  providing  that  the  carrier  acted  as  a  forwarder 
only,  and  should  not  be  liable  for  any  loss  or  damage  except  from 
fraud  or  gross  negligence,  the  stipulation  did  not  govern  the  lia- 

54.  Western  R.  Co.  t.  Harwell  Alabama  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  6G  Ala.  167, 
(Ala.),  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Oas.  358,  41  Am.  Rep.  749,  9  Am.  &  Sn^.  R. 
8  So.  649 ;  Ormsby  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Cas.  419 ;  Husten  v.  Peters,  1 
•Co.  4  Fed.  170;  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Mete.  (Ky.)  558.  Compare  Louis- 
Co.  V.  HoUoway,  9  Baxt.  (Tenn.)  ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Oden,  80  Ala.  38. 
188.  57.  Pacific  Express  Oo.  v.  Wallace, 

55.  The  St.  Hubert,  102   Fed.   362.  60  Ark.  100. 

56.  Feige  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  58.  Security  Trust  Co.  v.  Wells, 
62  Mich.  1;  Constable  v.  National  Fargo  &  Co.  Express,  178  N.  Y.  620, 
Steamship  Co.,  154  U.  S.  51,  38  L.  70  N.  E.  1109,  affg.  judg.  81  App. 
Ed.  903,  14  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  1062;  West-  Div.  (N.  Y.)  426,  80  N.  Y.  Supp. 
ern  R.  Co  v.  Little,  86  Ala.  159,  37  830. 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Oas.  660;  South,  etc., 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  480 

"bility  of  the  carrier  for  failure  to  return  the  goods,  when  ordered 
so  to  do  by  the  shipper,  during  their  transportation.^'  A  stipula- 
tion in  the  bill  of  lading  that  the  carrier  shall  not  be  liable  except 
as  warehouseman  while  the  property  awaits  further  conveyance, 
and  that  no  carrier  shall  be  liable  after  the  property  is  ready  for 
delivery  to  the  next  carrier,  is,  it  seems,  not  contrary  to  public 
policy.^  Where  a  connecting  carrier  permitted  flour  to  remain 
in  its  warehouse  for  forty-nine  days  before  forwarding  the  same 
because  of  a  shortage  of  cars,  without  notifying  the  shipper,  know- 
ing that  the  detention  would  be  unusual,  thereby  preventing  the 
shipper  from  protecting  itself  by  insurance,  and  the  flour  was 
totally  or  partially  destroyed  by  the  burning  of  the  warehouse,  the 
carrier  was  chargeable  with  such  negligence  as  made  it  responsible 
for  the  loss  of  the  flour,  notwithstanding  a  provision  in  the  bill  of 
lading  that  no  carrier  should  be  liable  for  the  loss  of  goods  or 
damage  thereto  by  fire.^^  A  carrier  acted  as  a  warehouseman  in 
receiving  goods  in  its  parcel  room  for  safe  keeping,  and  had  a  right 
to  limit  its  liability  to  ten  dollars  in  case  of  loss  of  the  goods,  sa 
that  a  receipt  containing  such  limitation  was  binding  upon  the 
owner,  and  limited  his  recovery  to  that  amount.^^  Where  a  state- 
ment of  claim  alleges  that  defendant  is  a  common  carrier,  the 
defendant  cannot  relieve  itself  from  liability,  if  it  is  in  fact  a 
common  carrier,  by  inserting  in  its  bill  of  lading  a  clause  to  the 
effect  that  it  shall  be  held  liable  only  as  forwarder.^  A  contract 
stipulating  that  the  carrier  shall  not  be  liable  for  loss  after  th& 
goods  are  ready  for  delivery  to  the  consignee,  and  that  goods  not 
removed  by  the  consignee  within  twenty-four  hours  after  arrival 
may  be  kept  by  the  carrier  at  the  risk  of  the  consignee,  etc.,  does 

59.  Rosenthal  v.  Weir,  54  App.  Dir.      Milling  Ck).,  162  Fed.  879,  89  C.  C.  A. 
(N.   Y.)    275,    66   N.   Y.    Supp.    841,      569. 

judg    aflfd.  170  N.  Y.  148,  63  N.  E.  62.  Terry  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  81 

65,  57  L.  R.  A.  527.  S.  C.  279,  62  S.  E.  249,  18  L.  R.  A. 

60.  Washburn-Crosby    CJo.    v.    Bos-       (N.  S.)    295. 

ton  &  A.  R.  Co.,  180  Mass.  252,  62  63.  Blakiston  v.  Davies,  Turner  &. 

^    jj    590.  Co.,  42  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  390. 

61.  Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Star  &  Crescent 


490 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


not  terminate  the  liability  as  carrier,  on  the  carrier  checking  up 
the  car  containing  the  goods,  and  making  up  a  record  thereof 
within  a  few  minutes  after  the  arrival  of  the  car,  thereby  making 
the  goods  ready  for  delivery  to  the  consignee ;  but  until  notice  is 
inven  to  the  consignee,  or  until  a  reasonable  time  has  elapsed, 
within  which  he  may  receive  the  goods,  the  liability  contmues. 

§  30.  Limitation  of  amount  of  liability.— In  general. 

The  early  English  cases  held  that  a  carrier  might  limit  the 
amount  of  its  liability  by  a  simple  notice.^^  The  early  New  York 
cases  recognized  this  right  while  holding  that  a  carrier  could  not 
restrict  its  common  law  liability  in  other  respects,  even  by  express 
contract.^^  The  later  cases  are  somewhat  at  variance  as  to  whether 
the  liability  of  the  carrier  as  to  amount  can  be  limited  by  notice 
to  the  shipper.  While  a  public  notice  is  generally  held  insufficient 
to  discharge  the  common  carrier  from  its  legal  liability,  unless 
expressly  assented  to  by  the  shipper,  in  respect  to  those  duties 
desi<med  simply  to  enjoin  good  faith  and  fair  dealing,  a  notice 
alone,  if  distinctly  brought  home  to  the  knowledge  of  the  owner 
of  the  property  delivered  for  carriage,  will  be  sufficient."  But 
it  is  now  ahnost  universally  held,  following  the  leading  case,^^  that 

64.  Podrat  v.  Narragansett  Pier  R.  HI.  466,  72  Am.  Dec.  760.  See  §  3 
Co.,  32  R.  I.  255,  78  Atl.  1041.  and  cases  there  cited. 

65.  Maving  v.  Todd,  1  Stark.  72;  68.  Hart  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 
Harris  v.  plckwood,  3  Taunt.  264;  112  U.  S.  331,  5  Sup.  Ct.  151,  28  L. 
Batson  v.  Donovan,  4  B.  &  Aid.  21.  Ed.  717,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  604. 

66.  Hollister  v.  Nowlen,  19  Wend.  In  this  case  the  court  said:  "  Tiiere 
(N.  Y.)  234;  Cole  v.  Goodwin,  19  is  no  justice  in  allowing  the  shipper 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  251;  Orange  County  to  be  paid  a  large  value  for  an  article 
Bank  v.  Brown,  9  Wend.   (N.  Y.)   85.  which  he  has  induced  the  carrier  to 

67.  Doyle  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  take  at  a  low  rate  of  freight  on  the 
126  Fed.  841;  Moses  v.  Boston,  etc.,  assertion  and  agreement  that  its 
R  Co.  24  N.  H.  85,  55  Am.  Dec.  222;  value  is  a  less  sum  than  that  claimed 
Farmers,  etc..  Bank  v.  Champlain  after  a  loss.  It  is  just  to  hold  the 
Transp.  Co.,  23  Vt.  186,  56  Am.  Dec.  shipper  to  his  agreement,  fairly 
68;  Oppenheimer  v.  United  States  Ex-  made,  as  to  value,  even  where  the  1  ss 
press  Co.,  69  111.  62,  18  Am.  Rep.  96;  or  injury  haa  occurred  through  the 
Western  Transp.   Co.  v.  Newhall,   24  negligence  of  the  carrier.     The  effect 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


491 


a  common  carrier  may,  by  special  contract,  limit  tte  amount  of 
its  liability  for  loss  occurring  even  from  its  own  negligence,  the 
contract  being  fairly  made,  signed,  or  agreed  to  by  the  shipper, 
and  the  rate  of  freight  charged  being  based  on  the  agreed  valuation. 
Such  a  contract  is  in  no  sense  a  limitation  of  the  carrier's  liability 
for  the  results  of  its  own  negligence,  but,  fairly  entered  into,  leaves 
the  carrier  responsible  for  its  negligence,  and  simply  fixes  the  rate 
of  freight  and  liquidates  the  damages.®*    In  some  of  the  States  a 


of  the  agreement  is  to  cheapen  the 
freight  and  secure  the  carriage,  if 
there  is  no  loss;  and  the  effect  of  dis- 
regarding the  agreement,  after  a  loss, 
is  to  expose  the  carrier  to  a  greater 
risk  than  the  parties  intended  he 
should  assume.  The  agreement  as  to 
value  in  this  ease  stands  as  if  the 
carrier  had  asked  the  value  of  the 
horses,  and  had  been  told  by  the 
plaintiflf  the  sum  inserted  in  the 
contract." 

"  The  limitation  as  to  value  has 
no  tendency  to  exempt  from  liability 
for  negligence.  It  does  not  induce 
want  of  care.  It  exacts  from  the  car- 
rier the  measure  of  care  due  to  the 
value  agreed  on.  The  carrier  is 
bound  to  respond  in  that  value  for 
negligence.  The  compensation  for 
carriage  is  based  on  that  value.  The 
shipper  is  estopped  from  saying  that 
the  value  is  greater.  The  articles 
have  no  greater  value  for  the  pur- 
pose of  the  contract  of  transportation 
between  the  parties  to  that  contract. 
The  carrier  must  respond  for  n^li- 
gence  up  to  that  value.  It  is  just 
and  reasonable  that  such  a  contract 
fairly  entered  into,  and  where  there 
is  no  deceit  practiced  on  the  ship- 
per, should  be  upheld.  There  is  no 
violation  of  public  policy.  On  the 
contrary,  it  would  be  unjust  and  un- 


reasonable, and  would  be  repugnant 
to  the  soundest  principles  of  fair 
dealing  and  of  the  freedom  of  con- 
tracting, and  thus  in  conflict  with 
public  policy,  if  a  shipper  should  be 
allowed  to  reap  the  benefit  of  the 
contract  if  there  is  no  loss,  and  to 
repudiate  it  in  case  of  loss." 

69.  U.  8. — A  written  contract  be- 
tween a  shipper  and  a  common  car- 
rier, by  which  it  is  stipulated,  in 
consideration  of  a  reduced  rate  of 
carriage,  that  the  value  of  the  arti- 
cles shipped  shall  be  limited  to  a 
stated  amount,  is  not  void  as  against 
public  policy,  as  relieving  the  car- 
rier from  liability  for  negligence. 
Jennings  v.  Smith,  106  Fed.  139,  45 
C.  C!.  A.  249.  See  also,  Muser  v. 
Holland,  17  Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  412,  1 
Fed.  382;  Earnest  v.  Express  Co.,  1 
Woods  (U.  S.),  573;  Hopkins  v. 
Westcott,  6  Blatchf.  (U.  S.)  64. 
Compare  Eells  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  52  Fed.  903;  Scruggs  v.  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Fed.  318. 

Ajla. — The  limitation  as  to  amount 
is  valid  where  it  is  a  fair  valuation 
of  the  goods  shipped  and  is  virtually 
a  liquidation  of  the  damages.  West- 
ern R.  Co.  V.  Harwell,  97  Ala.  341. 
And  this  although  the  loss  may  have 
been  due  to  the  carelessness  of  the 
carrier's    servants.      Louisville,    etc.. 


^92  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

Btipulation  fixing  an  amount  beyond  which  the  carrier  will  not 


R.  Oo.  V.  Sherrod,  84  Ala.  178,  4  So. 
29.  A  shipper  may  agree,  in  consid- 
eration of  special  rates  or  privileges, 
on  values  in  case  of  loss  or  injury, 
if  the  agreed  values  are  not  unrea- 
sonable or  arbitrary,  and  no  agree- 
ment is  made  exempting  the  carrier 
from  the  consequences  of  negligence 
or  bad  faith.  Georgia  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Hughart,  90  Ala.  36,  8  So.  62;  Ala- 
bama, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Little,  71  Ala. 
611,  12  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  37;  Mo- 
bile, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hopkins,  41  Ala. 
486,  94  Am.  Dec.  607;  South,  etc., 
Alabama  R.  Oo.  v.  Henlein,  52  Ala. 
615,  23  Am.  Rep.  578;  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Grant,  99  Ala.  325,  55  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  356;  Louisville,  etc., 
Co,  V.  Kelsey,  89  Ala.  287,  42  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  584. 

Airk. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Weakly,  50  Ark.  397,  7  Am.  St.  Rep. 
104,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  635;  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lesser,  46  ^rk. 
236. 

Conn. — A  statement  of  the  value 
of  a  horse  shipped,  made  by  the  ship- 
per in  answer  to  the  carrier's  in- 
quiry, which  value  is  inserted  in  the 
bill  of  lading,  is  conclusive  on  him 
as  to  the  value  of  the  horse  in  an 
action  against  the  carrier  for  its 
loss,  although  the  bill  of  lading  is 
silent  as  to  the  effect  of  such  valua- 
tion on  the  carrier's  liability,  and 
the  shipper  has  no  actual  informa- 
tion, and  did  not  suppose  that  his 
statement  would  affect  the  amount  of 
the  carrier's  liability.  Coupland  v. 
Housatonic  R.  Co.,  61  Conn.  531,  55 
Am.  &  Eng,  R.  Cas.  381,  15  L.  R.  A. 
634,  33  Atl.  870. 


Del. — A  rule  of  a  carrier  that  its 
liability  is  limited  by  the  rate  of 
freight  paid  on  shipments  is  binding 
on  shippers  having  notice.  Klair^  v. 
Wilmington  Steamboat  Oo.  (Del. 
Super.),  54  Atl.  694. 

Oa. — Though  a  railway  company  in 
its  capacity  as  a  common  carrier 
may,  as  the  basis  for  fixing  its 
charges  and  limiting  the  amount  of 
its  corresponding  liability,  lawfully 
make  with  a  shipper  a  contract  of 
affreightment  embracing  an  actual 
and  bona  fide  agreement  as  to  the 
value  of  the  property  to  be  trans- 
ported, and  in  such  case  the  latter, 
when  loss,  damage,  or  destruction  oc- 
curs, will  be  bound  by  the  "  agreed 
valuation,"  a  mere  general  limita- 
tion as  to  value  expressed  in  a  bill  of 
lading,  and  amounting  to  no  more 
than  "  arbitrary  preadjustment  of 
the  measure  of  damages,"  will  not, 
though  the  shipper  assents  in  writ- 
ing to  the  terms  of  the  document, 
serve  to  exempt  a  negligent  carrier 
from  liability  for  the  true  value. 
Central  of  Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Murphy, 
113  Ga.  514.  53  L.  R.  A.  720,  38  S.  E. 
970.  See  also.  Wood  v.  Southern  Ex- 
press Co.,  95  Ga.  451;  Georgia  R., 
eitc.,  Co.  V.  Keener,  93  Ga.  808,  44  Am. 
St.  Rep.  197;  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Sloat,  93  Ga.  808. 

III. — As  to  losses  resulting  from 
the  gross  negligence  of  the  carrier 
such  a  provision  is  void,  but  as  to 
all  other  losises  it  is  valid,  if  freely 
and  fairly  entered  into  by  the  shipp  r 
or  his  agent.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Oo. 
V.  Chapman,  133  III.  96,  23  Am.  St. 
Rep.  5S7,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  392; 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


493 


be  liable  is  not  enforceable  where  the  loss  results  from  the  negli- 


Oppenheimer  v.  United  States  Ex- 
press Co.,  69  111.  62;  Adams  Express 
Co,  V.  Stettaners,  61  111.  184,  14  Am. 
Rep.  57;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co,  v.  Har- 
mon, 12  111.  App.  54. 

Ind. — Where  the  parties  to  a  con- 
tract of  shipment  fix  the  value  of  the 
p-operty  to  be  transported,  by  a  con- 
tract freely  and  fairly  made,  and 
supported  by  a  good  consideration, 
such  value,  ao  fixed,  may  be  made 
the  measure  of  the  carrier's  liability; 
but,  in  order  to  make  the  stipulation 
efiFeotive,  there  must  be  some  other 
consideration  than  the  original  con- 
tractual relations  between  the  par- 
ties. Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Kevekordes  (Ind.  App.),  69  N.  E. 
1023;  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Cama- 
han  (Ind.  App.),  63  N.  E.  245,  64 
N.  E.  647.  See  also,  Rosenfeld  v. 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  Ind.  121,  53 
Am.  Rep.  500,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  89;  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Har- 
ris, 120  Ind.  73,  16  Am.  St.  Rep.  315, 
40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  151:  Michigan 
Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  H  aton,  37 
Ind.  448,  10  Am.  Rep,  89;  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ragsdale,  14  Ind.  App. 
406;  Bartiett  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  94  Ind.  281,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  549. 

Kan. — A  contract  fixing  the  value 
of  the  goods  delivered  to  the  carrier, 
or  fixing  a  limitation  of  damage  in 
case  of  loss  or  injury,  is  clearly  rea- 
sonable as  affecting  the  risk  and  the 
degree  of  care  required  concerning 
the  property  to  be  transported.  Pa- 
cific Express  Co.  v.  Foley,  46  Kan. 
457,  26  Am.  St.  Rep.  107,  46  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cos.  690.    See  also  Atchison, 


etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dill,  48  Kan.  210.  55 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  375 ;  Kansas  City, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Simpson,  30  Kan.  645, 
16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  C^s.  158,  46  Am. 
Rep.  104;  Kallman  v.  United  States 
Express  Co.,  3  Kan.  205,  overruled 
by  case  first  cited. 

Mass. — Hill  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
144  Mass.  284,  28  Am.  &  Eng.  K.  Caa. 
87;  Graves  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  137  Mass.  33,  50  Am.  Rep.  282; 
Squire  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  98 
Mass.  245,  93  Am.  Dec.  162;  Judson 
V.  Western  R.  Co.,  6  Allen  (Mass.), 
486. 

Mich. — Smith  v.  American  Express 
Co.    (Mich.),  66  X.  W.  479. 

Mo. — A  contract  limiting  a  right 
of  recovery  to  a  sum  agreed  upon  by 
the  parties  does  not  in  any  degree 
exempt  the  carrier  from  the  conse- 
quences of  its  own  negligence,  and  is 
binding.  Harvey  v.  Terre  Haute,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  74  Mo.  538.  But  not  xmless 
made  in  consideration  of  a  reduced 
rate.  McFadden  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  92  Mo.  343,  1  Am.  St.  Rep.  721, 
30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  17.  See  also. 
Connover  v.  Pacific  Express  Co.,  40 
Mo.  App.  31.  Stipulations  in  a  bill 
of  lading  that  in  case  the  goods  are 
lost  or  damaged,  the  amount  of  the 
loss  or  damage  shall  be  computed  at 
the  place  and  time  of  shipment,  apply 
to  injury  during  shipment,  and  do 
not  apply  to  loss  occurring  through 
the  carrier's  failure  to  deliver  the 
goods  in  a  reasonable  time.  D.  Klass 
Commission  Co.  v.  Wabash  R.  Co., 
80  Mo.  App.  164,  2  Mo.  App.  Repr. 
545. 

Ohio. — A     contract     limiting     the 


494 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


gence  of  the  carrier.     In  such  cases  the  shipper  or  owner  may 
prove  the  full  value  of  the  property  and  recover  accordingly.''* 


amount  of  the  liability  of  a  oommon 
carrier  for  the  loss  of  goods  carried, 
€ven  if  the  loss  is  due  to  negligence, 
is  not  contrary  to  public  policy.  Bal- 
lon V.  Earle,  27  Ohio  L.  J.  83,  22 
Atl.  1  113  14  L,  R.  A.  433,  48  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  31. 

N.  H. — Duntley.  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Oo.,  66  N.  H.  263;  Durgin  v.  Ameri- 
can Express  Co.,  66  N.  H.  277,  45 
Am.  &  Eng.   R.  Cas.  327. 

R.  7.— Ballou  V.  Earle,  17  R.  I.  441, 
33  Am.  St.  Ry.  881,  43  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ry.  Cas.  31. 

gf,  (7, — Johnstone  v.  Richmond,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  39  S.  C.  55,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  346. 

Tenn. — Starnea  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  91  Tenn.  516,  55  A.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  355;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Sowell,  90  Tenn.  17,  49  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  166.  But  see  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Gilbert,  88  Tenn.  431,  42 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  372;  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  V.  Wynn,  88  Tenn.  330, 
45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  312;  Coward 
V.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 
Lea.    (Tenn.)    225,  57  Am.  Rep.  227. 

Ya. — Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Payne,  86  Va.  481,  42  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  370. 

W.  Ya. — Zouch  v.  Chesapeake,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  36  W.  Va.  524,  49  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  712;  Maslin  v.  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  W.  Va.  180,  35 
Am.  Rep.  748. 

70.  lovxi. — McCune  v.  Burlington, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Iowa  600.  The  limi- 
ation,  in  a  contract  of  shipment  of  a 
horse,  of  (the  carrier's  liability  to 
$100,    the     "released    value    of    the 


horse  named  in  the  contract,  render- 
ing the  contract  void,  under  Code,  § 
2074,  providing  no  contract  shall  ex- 
empt a  railway  from  liability  of  a 
common  carrier  which  would  exist 
had  no  contract  been  made,  fraud  of 
the  shipper  in  making  representa- 
tions to  secure  a  cheaper  rate  of 
freight  will  not  prevent  his  proving 
the  full  value  of  the  horse.  Lucas  v. 
Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Iowa),  84 
N.  W.  673. 

Ky. — Eaughman  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  94  Ky.  150,  55  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  353;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Owen,  93  Ky.  201,  19  S.  W.  590; 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Hoeing,  88  Ky. 
373;  Omdorff  v.  Adams  Express  Co., 
3  Bush    (Ky.)    194,  96  Am.  Dec.  207. 

Minn. — A  carrier  cannot  limit  its 
liability  for  its  own  negligence  by 
contract,  either  as  to  the  right  or 
the  amount  of  recovery.  Boehl  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  44  Minn.  191, 
45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  351,  46  N.  W. 
333;  Moulton  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  31  Minn.  86,  47  Am.  Rep.  781, 
12  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  13. 

A  stipulation  fixing  the  value  of 
live  stock  in  a  carrier's  contract,  if 
fairly  made  as  the  basis  of  the  rate 
of  compensation  for  the  carrier's 
services  and  risks,  will  constitute  the 
limit  of  recovery  for  loss  of  the 
stock,  although  it  is  caused  by  the 
carrier's  negligence;  but  such  limi- 
tation is  invalid  in  case  of  negli- 
gence, if  its  purpose  was  merely  to 
limit  the  amount  of  the  carrier's  lia- 
bility. Alair  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
53  Minn.  160,  39  Am.  St.  Rep.  588,  55 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY. 


495 


But  in  such  cases  a  distinction  is  made  between  contracts  limiting 


Am.  &  Eng.  K.  Gas.  357,  19  L.  R.  A. 

764,  54  N.  W.  1072.     See  also  J.  J. 

Douglass  Co.  V.  Minnesota  Transfer 

R.   Co.,   62   Minn.   288,   30   L.   R.   A. 

860,  64  N.  W.  899,  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

Cas.  N.  S.  671. 

Miss. — Southern     Express     Co.     v. 

Seide,  67  Miss.   613,  42  Am.  &  Eng. 

K.  Cas.  398;   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Cb.  v. 

Abels,  60  Miss.  1024,  21  Am.  &  Eng. 

K.  Oas.  105;   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

Moss,    60    Miss.    1003,    45    Am.    Rep. 

428;   Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Moon, 

39  Miss.  822. 

]^eb. — Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

Witty,  3»  Neb.  275,  29  Am.  St.  Rep. 

436,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  169. 

OAio.— United  States  Express  Co. 
T.  Backman,  28  Ohio  St.  144;  Am- 
bach  V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 
Ohio  L.  J.  111. 

Pa. — If  the  valuation  is  an  agreed 
one,  made  in  consideration  of  re- 
duced charges,  it  will  bind  the  ship- 
per. But  otherwise  any  stipulation 
fixing  the  limit  of  the  carrier's  liabil- 
ity in  case  of  loss  or  injury  is  void, 
if  the  loss  is  the  result  of  the  car- 
rier's negligence.  Weiller  v.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.,  234  Pa.  St.  310,  19 
Am.  St.  Rep.  700,  42  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  390,  26  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  27; 
Grogan  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  114 
Pa.  St.  523,  60  Am.  Rep.  360,  30 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  10.  See  also  El- 
kins  V.  Empire  Transp.  Co.,  81  Pa. 
St.  315;  American  Express  Co.,  v. 
Sands,  55  Pa.  St.  140;  Farnham  v. 
Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Pa.  St.  53; 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Holmes  (Pa.), 
9  Atl.  166,  30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
14. 


Stipulation  in  a  contract  to  carry 
goods  that,  in  case  of  damage 
through  the  carrier's  negligence,  it 
shall  have  the  benefit  of  any  insur- 
ance effected  on  the  goods,  is  valid, 
so  as  to  entitle  the  carrier  to  a  de- 
duction for  insurance  paid  the  ship- 
per. Roos  V.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  199  Pa.  378,   49  Atl.  344. 

Tex. — Pacific  Express  Co.  v.  Ross, 
(Tex.  Civ.  App)  154  S.  W.  340.  A 
stipulation  in  the  contract  of  car- 
riage limiting  the  carrier's  liability 
to  a  value  fixed  in  the  contract  is  not 
binding,  when  the  goods  are  injured 
through  the  carrier's  negligence,  in 
the  absence  of  a  statute  permitting 
such  a  limitation  of  liability.  South- 
ern Pa.  Co.  V.  Anderson  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  63  S.  W.  1023.  See  also 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robbins,  4 
Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  43. 

A  stipulation  in  the  contract  of 
shipment  limiting  the  liability  to 
value  at  the  place  of  shipment  will 
be  disregarded,  as  against  public 
policy,  notwithstanding  it  was  an 
interstate  shipment,  where  it  is 
shown  that  the  loss  was  the  result  of 
the  carrier's  negligence.  Southern 
Pac.  Co.  v.  D'Arcais  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  64  S.  W.  813. 

Wis. — ^Even  the  transportation  of 
goods  at  an  agreed  valuation,  if  it 
can  be  construed  into  a  simple  agree- 
ment limiting  the  liability  of  the 
carrier,  will  have  no  application 
where  the  goods  are  lost  or  injured 
through  the  carrier's  negligence. 
Black  V.  Goodrich  Transp.  Co.,  55 
Wis.  319,  42  Am.  Rep.  713.  See  also 
Abrams  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87 


49G 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


the  liability  of  the  carrier  for  loss  or  damage  to  the  subject  o£ 
carriage  to  an  arbitrary  sum  of  money  not  fixed  with  reference 
to  the  agreed  actual  or  maximum  value  of  the  property,  which  are 
held  to  be  an  unlawful  limitation  of  the  carrier's  liability  for 
negligence,  and  contracts,  fairly  made  between  the  carrier  and 
shipper,  liquidating  such  loss  or  damage  in  advance  on  an  actual 
or  maximum  value  basis  agreed  on  and  stated  in  the  contract,  and 
constituting  the  basis  upon  which  freight  charges  are  calculated, 
which  are  held  to  be  valid  as  simply  limiting  the  liability  for 
loss  or  damage,  attributable  to  the  carrier's  negligence,  to  actual 
loss  on  such  a  basis,  the  agreed  value  being  taken  as  the  maximum 
or  actual  value  of  the  property.''^  The  carrier  has  the  right  to 
demand  from  the  consignor  such  information  as  will  enable  it  to 
decide  on  the  proper  compensation  to  charge  for  the  risk,  and  the 
degree  of  care  to  bestow  on  its  trust,  and  a  limitation  of  its  liabil- 
ity in  a  bill  of  lading  to  a  specified  amount,  unless  the  value  of 
goods  forwarded  is  truly  stated  if  coupled  with  compensating 
advantages  to  the  consignor  and  brought  to  his  knowledge,  and 
the  latter  has  the  alternative  of  getting  rid  of  the  limitation  by 
paying  a  reasonably  higher  freight  rate,  is  reasonable  and  con- 
sistent with  public  policy.'^^  In  New  York  the  rule  is  now  well 
settled  that  where  a  shipper  of  property  enters  into  a  contract 
with  a  common  carrier  whereby,  in  consideration  of  an  agreement 
of  the  latter  to  transport  the  property  at  reduced  rates,  it  is  stipu- 
lated that,  in  the  event  of  loss  or  injury  resulting  from  causes 

Wis.  485,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  55;  Boor-  72.  Oppenheimer   v.   United    States 

man    v.    American    Express    Co.,    31  Express  Co.,  69  111.  62,  18  Am.  Rep. 

-^jg     5^54  596;   Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Man- 

71._XJllman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co  ohester  Mills,  88  Tenn.  653,  14  S.  W. 

112   Wis.   168,   88  N.   W.   41;    Louis-  314;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Payne, 

ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wynn,  88  Tenn.  86  Va.  481,   42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

330,'  45    Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.    312;  366,  10  S.  E.  749,  6  L.  R.  A.  849,  14 

Johnstone  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Va.  L.  J.   82.     See  also  cases  cited 

39  S.  C.  55,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  note  69,  supra. 
346.     See  also  cases  cited  under  last 
preceding  note. 


Li:,IITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  497 

which  would  make  the  carrier  liable,  the  liability  will  be  limited 
to  an  amount  not  exceeding  a  valuation  specified,  the  shipper  in 
case  of  loss  or  injury  is  not  entitled  to  recover  more  than  the  sum. 
specified,  and  that  such  a  limitation  in  the  bill  of  lading  will 
protect  the  carrier  even  though  the  loss  or  injury  is  the  result  of 
negligenceJ^  But  the  courts  do  not  favor  these  contracts,  and 
general  words  will  not  be  construed  to  accomplish  this  result. 
Considerations  of  public  policy  demand  that  common  carriers 
should  discharge  fully  their  duties  to  the  public,  and  give  adequate 
notice  of  any  immunity  from  the  common  law  obligations,  and 
conditions  of  bills  of  lading  or  other  contracts  intended  to  limit 
liability  come  properly  within  the  rule  that  the  words  are  to  be 
taken  most  strongly  against  the  party  whose  language  they  are, 
and  who  is  in  an  advantageous  position  in  fixing  the  terms  of  the 
contract.''*  But  the  courts  make  the  distinction  that  the  common 
carrier  has  two  distinct  liabilities, — the  one  for  losses  by  accident 
or  mistake,  where  it  is  liable  by  the  custom  of  the  realm  or  the 
common  law,  as  an  insurer;  the  other,  for  losses  by  default  or 
negligence,  where  it  is  answerable  as  an  ordinary  bailee.^^  In 
cases  where  the  property  transported  is  of  unusual  or  extraor- 
dinary value,  a  notice  that  the  carrier  will  not  be  responsible  for 

73.  Zitnmer  v.  New  York,   etc.,   R.  port.      Steers    v.    Liverpool,    etc,,    R. 

Co.,    137  N.  Y.   460,   55   Am.   &   Eng.  Co.,  57  N.  Y.  1,  15  Am.  Rep.  453. 

R.  Cas.  354;  Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  70  74.  Westcott    v.    Fargo,    61    N.    Y. 

N.  Y.  410,  20  Am.  Rep.  60S ;  Belger  v.  543,  19  Am.  Rep.  300. 

Dinsmore,  51  N.  Y.  166,  10  Am.  Rep.  75.  Wheeler      v.      Ck;eanic      Steam 

575,  and  in  the  a.bsence  of  fraud,  con-  Xav.    Co.,    125   N.   Y.   155,   26   N.   E. 

cealment    or    improper   practice,    the  248,   21   Am.   St.   R«p.   729;    Dorr  v. 

legal  presumption  is  that  stipulations  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  4  Sandf. 

limiting  the  common  law  liability  of  (N.  Y.)    145,   11  N.  Y.  485,   62  Am. 

common  carriers,   contained   in   a  re-  Dec.   125;   Lamb  v.  Camden,   etc.,  R. 

ceipt  given  by  them  for  freight  were  Co.,   46  N.  Y.   278,   7  Am.  Rep.  387. 

known  and  assented  to  by  the  party  See  also  Kenney  v.  New  York  Cent., 

receiving  it.     So  held  also  of  stipula-  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  N.  Y.  422,  26  N.  E. 

tions    contained    in    the    ticket   of    a  626;    Jennings    v.    Grand    Trunk    R, 

passenger  by  steamship  for  a  foreign  Co.,  127  N.  Y.  438,  28  N.  E.  394. 

32 


498 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


loss  if  the  true  character  or  value  of  the  articles  is  not  stated  at 
the  time  of  shipment  unless  extra  freight  is  paid,  will  operate  to 
exempt  the  carrier  from  liability  even  for  its  own  negligence,  on 
the  theory  that  silence  on  the  part  of  the  shipper,  under  such 
circumstances,  is  such  a  fraudulent  concealment  from  the  carrier 
of  a  material  fact  affecting  its  liability  as  to  exempt  it  from  its 
obligation  to  transport  with  due  careJ^     But  where  a  bill  of 
lading  limited  the  liability  of  a  carrier  simply  as  a  carrier  of 
goods,  its  liability  as  bailee  for  hire  remained  unimpaired,  so 
that,  though  it  was  not  liable  as  carrier  beyond  the  amount  named 
in  the  contract,  it  was  liable  as  bailee  for  the  full  value  of  the 
goods  when  negligently  injured."     It  is  violated  duty  that  fur- 
nishes the  ground  for  an  action  of  negligence,''*  and  the  damages, 
in  an  action  of  negligence  cannot  be  fixed  by  the  contract  of  car- 
riao-e,  unless  the  carrier  show  its  immunity  on  the  face  of  its 
ao-reement.''^     An   action   against  a  common   carrier   to   recover 


76.  Rathbone  v.  New  York  Cent., 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  140  N.  Y.  48,  35  N.  E. 
418. 

77.  Bermel  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  172  N.  Y.  639,  65  N.  E.  1113, 
affg.  63  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  389,  70 
N.  Y.  Supp.  804.  See  also  New  York 
authorities  cited  in  preceding  notes 
to  this  section. 

78.  Brewer  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  124  N.  Y.  59,  26  N.  E.  324,  11 
L.  R.  A.  483,  21  Am.  St.  Rep.  647. 

79.  Nicholas  v.  New  York  Cent., 
etc.,*R.  Co.,  89  N.  Y.  370;  Wells  v. 
Steam  Nav.  Co.,  8  N.  Y.  375. 

Where  a  carrier  loses  all  trace  of 
goods  admittedly  received  by  it,  it  is 
liable  to  the  owner  for  their  value, 
and  such  liability  is  not  affected  by 
a  receipt  providing  for  a  liability  of 
$50  only  unless  a  greater  value  is 
stated;  such  receipt  containing  no 
stipulation  relieving  the  carrier  from 


negligence.  ]>lum  v.  Monahan,  36 
Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  179,  73  N.  Y. 
Supp.   132. 

Such  a  rece'pt  does  not  pr^>tect  the 
carrier  against  its  own  neglig  nce^ 
especially  in  the  absence  of  explana 
tion  of  non-delivery.  Simon  v.  Dun- 
lap's  Express  Co.,  3S  Misc.  Rep.  (N. 
Y.)    775,   78  N.  Y.   Supp.   1136. 

But  the  carrier  can  claim  the  bene- 
fit of  a  contract  of  carriage  limiting 
its  liability  to  a  certain  sum,  unless 
the  true  value  of  the  goods  is  stated, 
where  it  showed  that,  where  the 
value  of  the  goods  was  stated  or 
known  to  be  in  excess  of  that  sum., 
it  took  special  care  of  them,  and. 
made  special  arrangements  for  their 
delivery,  and  made  an  additional 
charge,  and  the  shippers  failed  to 
show  any  affirmative  act  of  wrong- 
doing on  the  carrier's  part.  Hirsch 
V.    New    York    Dispatch    &    Delivery 


LIMITATION  OF  LIABILITY.  499 

damages  for  its  negligence  in  delivering  goods  after  a  proper  and 
timelj  notice  from  the  shipper  to  stop  them  in  transitu,  which  it 
agreed  to  do,  is  founded  upon  the  tortious  act  of  the  carrier,  not 
upon  the  contract  of  carriage  under  which  the  goods  had  been 
shipped,  which  must  be  regarded  as  having  ended  upon  the  receipt 
of  the  notice  and  the  possession  of  the  goods  as  having  revested  in 
the  shipper,  the  carrier  holding  them  as  bailee ;  and,  therefore,  a 
limitation  in  the  contract  of  carriage  of  the  carrier's  liability  for 
loss  to  an  amount  specified  therein  will  not  preclude  a  recovery 
to  the  extent  of  the  value  of  the  goods.^°  But  where  a  package 
given  an  express  company  was  lost  by  it,  and  no  explanation  given, 
and  the  receipt  issued  by  the  carrier  stipulated  that  the  carrier 
should  not  be  liable  for  damages  unless  the  result  of  gross  negli- 
gence or  fraud,  and  that  the  shipper  should  not  demand  more  than 
fifty  dollars,  unless  otherwise  expressed  in  the  receipt,  and  the 
shipper  made  no  statement  of  value,  and  none  was  expressed  in 
the  receipt,  the  shipper  could  recover  no  more  than  fifty  dollars, 
though  the  actual  value  of  the  package  was  greater,  where  the  loss 
resulted  from  ordinary  negligence.^^  A  limitation  of  liability  to 
a  valuation  agreed  upon  to  determine  which  of  two  rates  shall 
apply  to   a   particular   shipment   is   not  forbidden   in   Carmack 

Co.,   85  N.  Y.   Supp.   198;    Rowan  v.  81.  Wilson     v.     Piatt,     84    N.     Y. 

Wells    Fargo    &    Co.,    80    App.    Div.  Supp.    143;     Bernstein    v.    Weir,    40 

(N.  Y.)  31,  SON.  Y.  Supp.  226;  Mag-  Misc.    Rep.    (N.   Y.)    635,    83   N.   Y. 

nin  V.  Dinsmore,   70  N.  Y.   410,   26  Supp.  48.      In    the    latter    case    the 

Am.  Rep.  608.  shippers  filled  out  in  their  own  blank 

80.  Rosenthal  v.   Weir,   170  N.  Y.  freight  receipt  books,  printed  by  an 

148,   63   N,  E.   65,   57   L.  R.  A.   527,  express  company,   a   receipt,   describ- 

affg.   54   App.   Div.    (N.  Y.)    275.   66  ing    the    freight,    the   consignee,    and 

N.    Y.    Supp.    841;    Cross    v.    O'Don-  his   address,    and    tendered    it   to   an 

nell,  44  N.  Y.  661,  4  Am.  Rep.  721;  employe  of  the  express  company  for 

Pennsylvania  R.  'Co.  v.  Am«rican  Oil  signature,  at  the  shipper's  store,  and 

Works,  126  Pa.  St.  485,  12  Am.  St.  the  employe  signed  and   returned  it. 

Rep.   885,   17   Atl.   671;    Reynolds   v.  and  it  was  held  to  constitute  a  spe- 

Railroad    Co.,   43   N.   H.    580;    Jones  cial   contract,  whose  conditions  were 

V.    Earl,    37    Cal.    630,    99    Am.    Dec.  binding  on  the  principals. 
333;  Litt.  v.  Cowley,  7  Taunt.  169,  23 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  411. 


600 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


Amendment  June  29,  190G,  §  7,  to  Act  Feb.  4,  1887,  §  20,  provid- 
ing that  no  receipt  shall  exempt  a  common  carrier  from  the  lia- 
bility thereby  imposed.  The  shipper  and  carrier  of  an  interstate 
shipment  are  not  forbidden  to  contract  to  limit  the  carrier's  lia- 
bility to  an  agreed  value  to  adjust  the  rate.^^     Inquiry  as  to  the 


82.  U.  S. —  Kansas  City  Southern 
R.  Co.  V.  Carl,  227  U.  S.  639,  33  Sup. 
Ct.  391,  57  L.  Ed.  — ;  Missouri,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Harriman  Bros.,  227  U.  S. 
657,  33  Sup.  Ct.  397,  57  L.  Ed.  — ; 
Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Croninger,  226 
U.  S.  491,  33  Sup.  Ct.  148,  57  L.  Ed. 
— ;  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Latta, 
226  U.  S.  519,  33  Sup.  Ct.  155,  57  L. 
Ed.  — ;  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Mil- 
ler,  id. 

A  case  of  valuation  to  adjust  the 
rate  and  not  of  exemption  from  lia- 
bility for  negligence,  forbidden  by  the 
Carmack  amendment,  is  presented 
where  the  shipper  delivered  to  the 
initial  carrier  an  agreement  to  re- 
lease all  liability  in  excess  of  $5  per 
hundred  pounds,  for  household 
goods,  carrier's  tariff  sheets  on  file 
showing  two  rates  on  house- 
hold goods,  one  when  released  to 
$5  per  hundred  pounds  and  the 
higher  rate  when  not  so  released,  and 
the  rate  indorsed  being  such  lower 
rate.  Kansas  City  Southern  R.  Co.  v. 
Carl,  supra. 

Ark. — United  States  Express  Co.  v. 
Cohn,  —  Ark.  —  157  S.  W.  144, 
under  the  amendment  of  Act  of  Con- 
gress, June  29,  1906,  to  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Act,  permitting  an  express 
company  engaged  in  interstate  com- 
merce to  limit  its  liability  for  loss  of 
goods  to  a  stated  value,  in  considera- 
tion of  a  reduced  rate,  the  consignee 


of  a  lost  interstate  shipment  is  en- 
titled to  recover  only  the  amount  as 
limited  by  the  receipt.  See  contra: 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co,  v.  Rape,,  100 
Ark.  269,  140  S.  W.  265. 

Colo.— J.  S.  Appel  Suit  &  Cloak  Co. 
V.  Piatt,  —  Colo.  — ,  132  Pac.  71,  an 
express  contract  with  reference  to  in- 
terstate shipments,  valuing  packages 
transported  at  the  lowest  rate  to  $50, 
and  limiting  the  company's  liability 
in  case  of  loss  to  that  sum,  is  valid. 

Ga. — Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co,  v. 
Warfield  &  Lee,  6  Ga.  App.  550,  65 
S.  E.  308. 

Iowa. — Winn  v.  American  Expresa 
Co.,  149  Iowa,  259,  128  N.  W.  663. 

Kan. — Southern  Nursery  Co.  v. 
Winfield  Nursery  Co.,  89  Kan,  522, 
132  Pac.  149,  an  interstate  carrier 
may  by  a  reasonable  agreempnt  limit 
the  amount  recoverable  by  the  ship- 
per to  an  agreed  value  understated  to 
obtain  the  lower  of  two  or  more  rates 
proportioned  to  the  risk, 

Mass. — Coleman  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  —  Mass.  — ,  103  N,  E,  92,  a 
provision  in  a  bill  of  lading  that  the 
amount  of  loss  for  which  any  carrier 
would  be  liable  should  be  computed 
on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  prop- 
erty (being  the  bona  fide  invoice 
price  if  any  to  the  consignee),  is  not 
contrary  to  public  policy,  and  is  with- 
in the  principles  applicable  to  inter- 
state commerce  under  federal  stat- 
utes.     See   also,   New   England   News 


LIMITATION  OF  CARRIERS. 


iOl 


actual  value  of  an  interstate  shipment  is  not  vital  to  the  fairness, 


Co.  V.  Metropolitan  S.  S.  Co.,  — 
Mass.  — ,  103  N.  E.  423. 

Mich. — Harrison  Granite  Co.  v. 
Grand  Trunk  Ry.  System. —  Mich,  — , 
141  N.  W.  642. 

Special  contracts,  by  which  the 
shipper  gives  a  lower  valuation  of 
property  in  consideration  of  a  re- 
duced rate  of  transportation,  are  an 
adjustment  beforehand  of  the  dam- 
ages from  negligence  and  are  valid, 
except  in  case  of  gross  negligence  on 
the  part  of  the  carrier;  such  contracts 
having  no  tendency  to  exempt  from 
liability  for  negligence,  being  con- 
tracts fixing  the  damages  and  not 
limiting  the  carrier's  liability  and  not 
contrary  to  public  policy.     Id. 

Minn. — ^Carpenter  v.  United  States 
Express  Co.,  120  Minn.  59,  139  N.  W. 
154,  the  Carmack  Amendment  to  the 
Hepbuin  Act  does  not  prevent  a  car- 
rier from  making  valid  contracts 
limiting  liability,  according  to  the 
agreed  value,  upon  interstate  ship- 
ments under  legal    tariff   rates. 

Miss. — ^American  Express  Co.  v. 
Burke  &  McGuire,  —  Miss.  — ,  61 
So.  312,  one  who  makes  an  interstate 
shipment  imder  a  common  expres.s  re- 
ceipt limiting  the  carrier's  liability 
to  $50  can  only  recover  that  amount 
as  da-mages  for  the  carrier's  failure 
to  properly  .deliver  this  article. 

Mo. — ^American  Silver  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Wabash  R.  Co.,  —  Mo.  App.  — ,  156 
S.  W.  830,  where  freight  was  shipped 
in  interstate  commerce  at  a  rate 
granted  on  condition  that  the  car- 
rier's liability  be  limited  to  ten  times 
the  freight,  such  limitation  was 
Talid  under  the  Interstate  Commerce 


Act  and  its  amendments,  and  in  the 
absence  of  fraud  fixed  the  amount  of 
plaintiiT's  recovery  in  an  action  on 
the  contract  for  loss  of  the  goods. 

N.  J. — Travis  v.  Wells,  Fargo  & 
Co.,  79  N.  J.  Law,  83,  74  Atl.  444. 

N.  T. — United  Lead  Co.  v.  Lehigh 
Valley  R.  Co.,  141  N.  Y.  Supp.  310; 
Gardiner  v.  New  York  Cent,,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  201  N.  Y,  387,  94  N,  E.  876, 
afif'g  order  139  App.  Div.  17,  123  N. 
Y.  Supp.  865,  and  answering  certified 
question,  140  App.  Div.  907,  125  N. 
Y.  Supp.  1121,  a  clause  in  a  contract 
of  shipment  in  consideration  of  re- 
duced rates  limiting  the  liability  of 
a  carrier  to  a  specified  valuation  will, 
include  loss  arising  from  neglig^enci- 
without  express  mention  thereof  j 
United  Lead  Co.  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R, 
Co.,  141  N.  Y.  Supp.  310. 

Contra:  Vignuroux  v.  Piatt,  115  N. 
Y.  Supp.  880.  G2  Misc.  Rep.  364;  Green- 
wald  V.  Weir,  111  N.  Y.  Supp.  235, 
59  Misc.  Rep.  431;  Schutte  v.  Weir, 
111  N.  Y.  Supp.  240,  59  Misc.  Rep. 
438. 

Olno. — Cohn-Goodman  Co,  v.  Wells, 
Fargo  Express  Co.,  32  Ohio  Oir.  Gt. 
R.  190,  when  a  shipper  accepts  a  re- 
ceipt from  an  express  company  for 
goods  delivered  to  the  carrier  which 
contains  a  condition  limiting  the  lia- 
bility of  the  company  to  $50  unless 
another  value  is  stated  and  fails  to 
fix  any  value  to  the  goods,  he  is 
thereby  precluded  from  recovering 
more  than  $50  for  the  loss  of  the 
goods,  where  the  charges  for  the  car- 
rying are  determined  by  the  value  of 
the  goods,  and  the  Interstate  Com- 
merce Act  d'.^es  not  change  this  rule. 


502  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

under  the  Carmack  Amendment,  of  a  stipulation,  limiting  tlie 
carrier's  liability  to  an  agreed  value,  where  it  plainly  appears  that 
the  rate  charged  was  based  on  value.  A  carrier  could,  at  common 
law,  by  a  fair  agreement,  limit  the  recovery  in  case  of  loss  to  an 
agreed  value  made  to  obtain  the  lower  of  two  or  more  rates.*^  The 
purpose  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act  June  29,  1906,  §  7,  pro- 
viding that  a  carrier  on  receiving  an  interstate  shipment  shall 
issue  a  bill  of  lading  therefor  and  be  liable  to  the  holder  for  any 
loss,  and  no  contract  shall  exempt  the  carrier  from  the  liability 
imposed,  is  to  render  the  initial  carrier  of  interestate  shipments 
over  connecting  lines  liable  to  the  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading  for 
any  loss  to  the  property,  whether  occurring  on  its  line  or  not,  and 
to  prevent  interstate  carriers  from  exempting  themselves  from 
liability  for  the  loss  of  property  after  it  has  passed  into  the  hands 
of  another  carrier  for  transportation,  but  it  does  not  abrogate  the 
right  of  the  carriers  to  regulate  their  charges  for  carriage  by  the 
value  of  the  goods,  or  to  agree  with  the  shipper  on  valuation  of 
the  property  carried,  and  a  contract  limiting  the  carrier's  liability 
to  a  specified  sum  in  consideration  of  the  rate  charged,  regulated 
by  the  value  of  the  goods,  is  not  invalid.^*    To  regulate  its  charges 

Okl. — St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v.  based  on  the   released  valuation,   no 

Bilby,  35  Okl.  589,  130  Pac.  1089,  a  recovery  can  be  had  for  loss  beyond 

carrier's  common -law  liability  for  the  that     authorized     by     the     published 

safe  carriage  in  interstate  commerce  rates. 

may  be  limited  by  a  special  contract  Utah. — Larsen     v.     Oregon     Short 

supported  by  a  consideration,  if  rea-  Line  R.  Co.,  38  Utah,  130,  110  Pac. 

sonably  and  fairly  entered  into  by  the  983. 

shipper,     and     not     covering     losses  W.     Va. — Fielder      &      Turley      t. 

caused  by  the  carrier's  negligence  or  Adams  Express  Co.,   69  W.  Va,  138, 

misconduct;  Missouri,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  71  S.  E.  99. 

Walston,    —    Okl.    — ,    133    Pac.  42,  83.  U.  8. — Adams    Express    Co,    v. 

where   there   is    no   agreed   valuation  Croninger,   supra;   Ohicago,  etc.,   Ry. 

and   the  bill  of  lading   accepted   and  Co,   v,   Latta,    supra;   Missouri    Pac, 

signed  by  the  shipper  without  fraud  Ry,    Co,    v.    Harper    Bros.,    201    Fed. 

on   the  carrier's  part  contains   a  re-  671;  United  Lead  Co.  v.  Lehigh  Val- 

leased    valuation,    and    where    eubse-  ley  R.   Co.,   141  N.  Y.   Supp,   310. 

quently  the  shipper  pays  the  freight  84.  Greenwald    v.    Barrett,    199   N". 

Y.    170,    92    N.    E.    218,   aflF'g   order. 


LIMITATION  OF  CARRIERS. 


503 


to  its  customers  with  reference  to  the  value  of  the  property  trans- 
ported, a  carrier  may  demand  of  the  shipper  a  declaration  of  the 
value,  or  may  agree  with  him  that  in  default  thereof  the  value 
shall  be  deemed  a  given  amount,  and  the  agreement  may  be  direct 
or  it  may  arise  indirectly  out  of  the  acceptance  by  the  shipper  of 
a  receipt  by  the  carrier  stating  that  the  value  is  to  be  considered 
a,  sum  specified,  if  no  other  has  been  given.^^  A  bill  of  lading 
whereby  a  shipper,  choosing  the  lower  of  the  defendant's  pub- 
lished rates,  declared  that  in  case  of  loss  it  would  not  assert  claims 
against  the  defendant  on  a  higher  valuation  than  $100  per  ton, 
was  lawful,  and  conclusive  upon  the  rights  of  the  parties,  and  for 
a  loss  only  of  a  part  of  the  shipment  though  less  than  a  carload, 
the  defendant  was  liable  only  at  the  rate  of  $100  per  ton.*^  In 
an  action  against  an  express  company  for  damages  for  nondelivery, 
the  shipper,  upon  whose  valuation  of  the  goods  the  contract  was 


Greenwald  v.  Weir,   15  N.  Y.  Supp. 
311,   130  App.   Div.   696. 

A  contract  of  carriage  by  a  carrier 
imposes  on  it  the  double  obligation 
of  carriage  proper  and  of  insurance, 
and  it  is  reasonable  and  customary 
to  fix  a  rate  to  be  paid  with  refer- 
ence to  both  liabilities,  and  to  fix 
such  rate  it  is  necessary  tliat  the  car- 
rier should  be  apprised  of  the  value 
of  the  articles  to  be  carried.  Judg- 
ment 111  N.  Y.  S.  235,  59  Misc.  Rep. 
431,  reversed;  Greenwald  v.  Weir,  115 
N.  Y.  S.  311,  130  A.  D.  696,  applica- 
tion denied  to  resettle  order,  116  N. 
Y.  Supp.  172,  131  App.  Div.  568. 

Where  the  written  receipt  consti- 
tuting the  contract  of  sihipment  con- 
tains a  clause  by  which  the  shipper 
agrees  that  the  value  of  the  property 
is  not  more  than  a  stated  sum  unless 
a  different  value  is  stated,  and  no 
greater  value  is  stated,  the  shipper  is 


estopped  from  claiming  in  case  of  loss 
that  the  value  was  greater.     Id. 

In  the  absence  of  statute,  a  carrier 
and  a  shipper  may  agree,  as  one  of 
the  terms  of  the  contract  of  shipment, 
on  the  value  of  the  goods;  and  in 
case  of  loss  thereafter  the  shipper  is 
estopped  from  claiming  that  the 
goods  were  of  greater  value  than  the 
sum  agreed  on.     Id. 

85.  Greenwald  v.  Barrett,  supra. 

86.  United  Lead  Co.  v.  Lehigh  Val- 
ley R.  Co.,  141  N.  Y.  Supp.  310. 

Under  a  shipping  receipt  for  three 
articles,  limiting  the  liability  to  $50, 
and  in  case  of  partial  loss  to  not 
more  than  such  proportion  as  $50 
bears  to  the  actual  value,  if  greater, 
the  shipper  could  recover  for  one  lost 
article  only  such  proportion  of  $50 
as  the  value  of  the  lost  article  bore 
to  the  whole  shipment.  Greenfield  v. 
Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  134  N.  Y.  Supp. 
913. 


504  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

based,  could  not  recover  a  greater  amount."  There  has  heen  some 
confusion  upon  this  question  in  the  decisions  of  the  New  York 
courts,  arising  out  of  apparently  conflicting  decisions  of  the  Court 
of  Appeals.  In  the  case  of  Westcott  v.  Fargo,^  it  was  held, 
Dwight,  C,  writing  for  the  Commission  of  Appeals,  and  all  con- 
curring, that  the  result  of  previous  cases  decided  by  the  Court 
of  Appeals,  including  Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,*'  where  it  was  held 
that  although  a  common  carrier  may  stipulate  for  his  exemption 
from  liability  for  losses  through  his  negligence,  his  contract  will 
not  be  construed  to  contain  such  an  exemption  unless  it  is  so  ex- 
pressly agreed,  was,  that  it  is  lawful  for  a  carrier  to  make  such  a 
contract,  and  that  he  might,  by  clear  and  distinct  expressions,  re- 
lieve himself  from  losses  occasioned  by  his  own  negligence.  The 
decision  in  Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  supra,  was  handed  down  in 
March,  1874.  The  case  of  Westcott  v.  Fargo,  supra,  was  decided 
by  the  Commission  of  Appeals  in  January,  1875.  In  the  follow- 
ing May  the  Magnin  case  came  before  the  Court  of  Appeals  on  a 
second  appeal,^"  where  it  was  held  per  totam  curiam,  Folger,  J., 
assigning  the  reasons  for  the  judgment,  that  a  stipulation  limiting 
the  amount  for  which  the  carrier  shall  be  liable  was  binding  upon 
the  shipper  who  had  notice  of  the  limitation  and  whose  merchan- 
dise had  been  lost  by  the  ordinary  negligence  of  the  carrier ;  that 
silence  on  the  part  of  the  shipper  as  to  the  real  value,  although 
there  is  no  inquiry  by  the  carrier,  and  no  artifice  to  conceal  the 
value  or  to  deceive,  discharges  the  carrier  from  liability  for  ordi- 
nary negligence  to  a  larger  amount.  When  the  Magnin  case  came 
before  the  Court  of  Appeals  a  third  time^^  the  rule  laid  down  on 
the  second  appeal  was  distinctly  reiterated,  Allen,  J.,  assigning 
the  reasons,  and  it  has  been  followed  by  the  Court  of  Appeals 

87.  Pastore    v.    American    Express  90.  Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  62  N.  Y. 
Co.,  13S  N.  Y.  Supp.  316.  35. 

88.  Westcott   V.    Fargo,    61   N.   Y.  91.  Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  70  N.  Y. 
643,  19  Am.  Rep.  300.  410,  26  Am.  Rep.  608. 

89.  Magnin  V.  Dinsmore,  56  N.  Y. 
16S.  > 


LIMITATION  OF  CARRIERS.  505 

in  several  subsequent  cases.*^  These  two  cases,  comprising  four 
decisions  of  our  highest  court,  have  been  differently  interpreted 
and  applied  by  the  legal  profession,  and,  as  a  recent  authority  well 
expresses  it,  "  have  been  cited  on  both  sides  of  the  bar  fittingly 
and  frequently  "  for  many  years.  Finally,  to  make  confusion 
still  more  confounded,  in  1901,  the  Appellate  Division  of  the 
Second  Department,  by  a  unanimous  decision,  Woodward,  J., 
assigning  the  reasons,  recognizing  that  there  was  "  some  con- 
fusion "  on  this  point,  attempted  to  explain  the  causes  of  it  and 
to  straighten  out  the  situation  and,  adopting  the  Westcott  v.  Fargo 
decision  as  the  true  rule,  held  that  where  a  bill  of  lading  limited 
the  liability  of  a  carrier  of  goods,  its  liability  as  bailee  for  hire 
remained  unimpaired,  so  that,  though  it  was  not  liable  as  carrier 
beyond  the  amount  named  in  the  contract,  it  was  liable  as  bailee 
for  the  full  value  of  the  goods  when  negligently  injured.^^  This 
decision  was  affirmed  by  the  majority  of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  on 
the  opinion  of  the  lower  court.^*  Justice  O'Brien,  however,  wrote 
a  dissenting  opinion,  with  which  Justice  Gray  concurred,  stating 
the  true  rule  to  be  that  stated  in  a  preceding  paragraph  of  this 
section  and  which  is  now  regarded  to  be  the  finally  settled  rule  in 
this  State,^*  and  is  sustained  by  the  Federal  Supreme  Court^^  and 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Massachusetts.^  The  Court  of  Appeals, 
in  1906,  in  the  case  of  Tewes  v.  North  German  Lloyd  S.  S.  Co.,®'^ 
Werner,  J.,  writing  the  prevailing  opinion,  held  that  the  case  of 
Westcott  V.  Fargo  was  "  distinctly  overruled  "  by  that  court  in 
the  decision  in  the  Mangin  case  on  the  second  appeal,  and  that  the 

92.  Zimmer    v.    New    York    Cent..,      See  Par.  9  of  this  section  and  oases 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  N.  Y.  460;   Wheeler      cited  in  note  73. 

V.  Oceanic  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  72  Hun,  95.  Hart   v.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co., 

5,  25  N.  Y.  Supp.  578,  aff'd  149  N.  Y.  112  U.  S.  331,  5  Sup.  Ct.  151,  28  L. 

576.  Ed-  717. 

93.  Bermel   v.   New   York,   etc.,   R.  96.  Graves  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  62  App.  Div.  389,  70  N.  Y.  Supp.  Co..  137  Mass.  33. 

,804.  9'-  Tewes  v.  North   German  Lloyd 

94.  Bermel   v.   New   York,   etc.,   R.      S.  S.  Co.,  186  N.  Y.  151,  78  N.  E.  864, 
Co.,   172  N.  Y.   639,   65   N.   E.   1113.      8  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.)  199. 


50G 


THE  LAW  OF  CAERIERS. 


true  rule  in  that  a  stipulation  limiting  the  amount  of  the  carrier's 
liability  in  case  of  loss  or  injury,  unless  a  declaration  of  value  in 
excess  of  that  sum  is  made,  covers  a  loss  of  goods  occasioned  by 
negligence,  although  there  is  no  express  provision  exempting  the 
carrier  from  liability  for  its  own  negligence.  A  recent  case  in 
the  Appellate  Division  of  the  First  Department,  decided  in  1909, 
based  upon  the  last  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  holds  that  an 
agreement  that  a  carrier  of  an  express  package,  the  value  of  which 
is  not  stated,  shall  not  be  liable  in  any  sum  above  fifty  dollars, 
is  good,  whether  the  carrier  is  careless  or  not.^*  In  California,  it 
is  the  rule  that  a  shipping  contract  voluntarily  entered  into,  which 
fixes  an  agreed  valuation  of  the  property  which  forms  the  basis 
for  the  freight  charges,  is  an  agreement  fixing  the  valuation  of 
the  property,  and  not  a  contract  limiting  the  liability  of  the  carrier, 
and  under  the  contract  the  carrier  is  only  liable  as  stipulated,  and 
then  only  to  the  extent  of  the  valuation  fixed.^^  In  Colorado,  a 
carrier  may  limit  its  liability  in  the  transportation  of  freight, 
where  proper  methods  of  valuation  are  pursued;  but  a  contract 
limiting  a  carrier's  liability  to  five  dollars  per  hundred  weight,  or 
to  a  maximum  of  $120,  was  held  to  be  invalid,  where  the  freight 
is  worth  over  $900,  and  the  carrier  had  knowledge  thereof/  In 
Indiana,  it  is  held  that  there  is  no  difference  between  a  shipment 

98.  Magnus    v.    Piatt,    115    N.    Y.  A  shipper  who  stipulates  when  the 
Supp.  824,  62  Mific.  Rep.  499.  shipment   is   received   that   the  goods 

99,  Mering    v.    Southern    Pac.    Co.,  are   of   a   certain   value,    is    estopped 
161  Cal.  297,  119  Pac.  80.  from   claiming   a   greater   amount   in 

Under   Civ.   Code,    §   2174,   permit-  an  action  for  damages  for  their  loss 

ting    the    obligations    of    a    common  or  injury.     Id. 

carrier  to  be  limited  by  special  oon-  1.  Colorado  &  S.  Ry.  C\>.  v.  Manatt, 

tract   as   well   as   under   the   general  21  Colo.  App.  593,  121  Pac.  1012. 

rules  of  law,  a  contract  with  an  ex-  An    attempt    to    limit    a    carrier's 

press  company,  limiting  the  recovery  liability   to  an  arbitrary  amount,  witli- 

to  the  value  agreed  upon  between  it  out  regard  to  the  value  of  the  ship- 

and  the  shipper  in  consideration  of  a  ment,   is   void,  although    assented  to 

special  rate  given,  is  valid.  Reeder  v.  in    writing    by   the    shipper.      Union 

Wells,  Fargo  k  Co.   14  Ca,l.  App.  790,  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Stupeck,  50  Colo.  151, 

113   P.    342.  114  P.  648. 


LIMITATION  OF  CAKRIERS.  507 

at  an  agreed  valuation  and  a  shipment  without  an  agreed  valuation, 
but  under  an  agreement  limiting  the  amount  of  the  carrier's  lia- 
bility to  an  agreed  amount  in  consideration  of  reducing  the  rate, 
both  standing  on  the  same  basis  with  reference  to  their  validity.* 
Parties  may  agree  on  the  valuation  of  property  shipped  by  express, 
and  limit  the  carrier's  liability  by  a  contract  fairly  made,  on  a 
good  consideration.*  An  agreement  of  shipment,  limiting  the  lia- 
bility of  an  express  company  for  the  freight  shipped  to  a  certain 
sum,  is  held,  in  Iowa,  to  be  void  at  common  law  as  against  public 
policy,  as  well  as  by  Code,  §  2074,  providing  that  no  contract 
shall  exempt  a  railway  corporation  from  the  liability  of  a  common 
carrier  which  would  exist  had  no  contract  been  made ;  and  such 
rule  is  not  obviated  by  the  provisions  of  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Act,  making  a  common  carrier  liable  to  the  holder  of  the  bill  of 
lading  for  any  damage,  etc.,  caused  by  it  or  by  any  subsequent 
carrier,  and  providing  that  no  contract  shall  exempt  such  carrier 
from  the  liability  thereby  imposed.*  The  contract  of  a  carrier  to 
relieve  itself  of  its  common-law  liability  by  arbitrarily  fixing  the 
value  of  property  carried  to  determine  the  freight  and  the  extent 
of  its  liability,  is  in  violation  of  the  express  provision  of  Kentucky 
Const.,  §  196,  and  void,  except  in  cases  of  fraud.^  In  an  action 
for  damages  to  goods  shipped  under  a  bill  of  lading  providing  that 
any  loss  or  damage  shall  be  computed  at  the  value  of  the  property 
at  the  time  and  place  of  shipment,  the  provision  controls  in  Mary- 
land.* A  common  carrier,  by  agreement  with  a  shipper,  can  limit 
its  liability  for  damages  for  goods  injured  to  the  amount  stipu- 
lated in  the  shipping  receipt,  under  New  Jersey  law,  such  con- 
tract not  being  opposed  to  public  policy.^     Under  the  laws  of 

8.  Wabash  R.  Co.  T.  Priddy,  — Ind.  Southern  Express  Co.  ▼.  Fox  &  Lo- 

— ,  101  N.  E.  724.  ?an    131  Ky.  257,  115  S.  W.  184,  117 

8.  Adams  Express  Oo.  v.  Byers,  —  S.  W.  270. 
Ind.  — ,  95  N.  E.  518.  6.  Merchants'    &    Miners'    Transp. 

4.  Winn  v.  American  Express  Co.,  Co.  v.  Eichberg,  109  Md.  211,  71  All. 
149  Iowa,  259,  128  N.  W.  663.  993;   Eiehberg  v.  Central  of  Ga.  Ry. 

5.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Wood-  Co.,  Id. 

ford,   152  Ky.  398,   153  S.  W.  722;  7.  American    Silk    Dyeing    Oo.    y. 


508 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


Kansas,  railroads  as  carriers  are  liable  at  common  law  to  pay  a 
shipper  in  full  for  property  lost  or  damaged  to  the  extent  of  in- 
juries sustained  and  the  contract  limiting  such  liability  is  void 
unless  made  by  the  permission  of  the  State  Board  of  Railroad 
Commissioners.^  In  North  Dakota  it  is  held  that  a  special  con- 
tract limiting  the  liability  of  a  carrier  will  not  be  enforced  unless 
fairly  entered  into,  and  stipulations  fixing  a  mere  arbitrary  valua- 
tion for  the  purpose  of  limiting  the  carrier's  liability  are  not  just 
and  reasonable.^  It  has  been  held  in  Texas  that  a  contract  for 
shipment  of  freight,  which  limits  the  recovery  to  a  specified  sum 
per  hundred  pounds,  is  invalid  at  common  law.^°  A  stipulation 
in  a  bill  of  lading,  limiting  the  carrier's  liability  to  the  value  of 
oil  shipped  at  the  point  of  shipment,  is  contrary  to  public  policy 
and  void."  In  Washington  it  is  the  rule  that  a  limitation  on  the 
value  of  the  goods  shipped  in  consideration  of  a  reduced  rate  of 
carriage  is  binding  in  the  event  of  loss,  and  the  shipper  cannot 
recover  above  the  value  fixed,  where  the  contract  is  fairly  made." 
A  bill  of  lading,  providing  that  the  carrier  shall  not  be  liable 
beyond  the  value  fixed,  relates  to  loss  of  goods,  and  does  not  pre- 
clude recovery  for  delay  or  fix  amount  of  such  damages  in  West 
Virginia."  A  contract  limiting  the  liability  of  a  carrier  to  a  cer- 
tain amount  in  case  of  loss  of  or  injury  to  the  goods  in  considera- 
tion of  a  reduced  rate  does  not  limit  the  recovery  in  case  of  de- 
livery to  the  wrong  person."  The  Federal  courts  have  held  that, 
where  a  carrier's  transportation  contract  provided  that  it  should 

Fuller's  Express   Co.,  82  N.  J.  Law,  11.  Baltimore  &  O.   R.   Co.  v.  Ori- 

654,  82  Atl.  894;   Saunders  v.  Adams  ental   Oil    Co.    (Tex.   Civ.   App.)    Ill 

Expi-«ss   Co.,   76  N.   J.   Law.   228,   69  S.    W.   979. 

Atl.    206;    Atkiknson    v.    New    York  12.  Windmiller    v.    Northern    Pac. 

Transfer  Co.,  76  N.  J.  Law,  608,  71  Ry.  Co.,  52  Wash.  613,  101  Pac.  225. 

Atl.  278.  ^2-  Delaney   v.   United    States   Ex- 

8.  Atchison,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Rodg-  press  Co.,   70  W.  Va.   502,   74    S.   E. 
ers,  16  N.  M.,   120,  113  Pac.  805.  512. 

9.  Hanson   v.  iGreat  Northern   Ry.  14-  Clarke-Lawrenoe    Co.  v.   Chesa- 
Co..  18  N.  D.  324,  121  N.  W.  78.  peake  &  O.  R.  Co.,  63  W.  A.  423,  61 

10.  Atchison,      etc.,      Ry.      Co.     r.      S.  E.  364, 
Smythe,    (Tex  .Civ.  App.)    119  S.  W. 

892. 


LIMITATION  OF  CARRIERS.  509 

not  be  liable  for  more  than  $1,200  for  the  contents  of  plaintiff's 
car,  it  was  liable  for  such  proportion  of  that  amount  as  the  value 
of  the  property  destroyed  bore  to  the  value  of  all  the  property  in 
the  car.^^ 

§  31.  Limitation  of  amount  where  value  is  not  disclosed. 

A  receipt  given  by  an  express  company  for  the  transportation 
of  goods  providing  that  the  value  was  not  more  than  fifty  dollars 
unless  a  greater  value  was  stated  therein,  and  that  the  company 
should  not  be  liable  for  more  than  the  value  so  stated,  nor  for 
more  than  fifty  dollars  if  no  value  was  stated  therein,  limited  its 
liability  to  fifty  dollars,  in  the  absence  of  a  declaration  of  a  greater 
value  of  the  goods.^^  Where  the  consignor  of  goods  by  express 
fails  to  place  a  value  on  the  shipments,  as  called  on  to  do  by  the 
bill  of  lading  filled  out  by  him,  the  alternative  provision  thereof 
limiting  the  value  to  fifty  dollars  will  prevent  any  further  re- 
covery." Where  an  express  company  received  a  package  without 
notice  as  to  its  value,  and  gave  a  receipt  limiting  its  liability,  and 
received  the  minimum  rate  of  transportation,  in  the  event  of  a  loss, 
the  company  is  liable  only  for  the  amount  specified.^^  Under 
Virginia  Code  1904,  §  1294c(24),  providing  that  no  contract  shall 
exempt  any  common  carrier  from  the  liability  of  a  common  carrier 
which  would  exist  had  no  contract  been  made  or  entered  into,  an 
express  company  is  liable  for  the  full  value  of  a  trunk  destroyed 

15.  Shelton  v.   Canadian  Northern  valid.     Inman  &  Co.  v.  Seaboard  Air 

Ry.  Co.,   (C.  C,  Minn.)    189  Fed.  153.  Line  Ry.   Co.,    (C.  C,  Ga.)    159   Fed. 

Such  a  contract  lias  no  application  960. 

to  a  cause  of  action  for  the  carrier's  16.  Cohen    v.    Morris    European   & 

conversion  of  property  in  the  car  not  American    Express    Co.,    136    N.    Y. 

destroyed,    and    for    which    plaintiff  Supp.   489,   151   App.   Div.   672,  rev'g 

was  entitled  to  recover  the  value  of  judg.   132  N.  Y.  Supp.   347. 

the  property  at  the  time  it  was  con-  17.  D'Arcy  v.  Adams  Express  Co., 

verted.     Id.  162    Mich.    363,    17    Detroit   Leg.   N. 

A   clause   in   a  bill  of  lading  that  593.  127  N.  W.  261. 

the   value   of   goods   lost   or   injured  18.  Southern  Express  Co.  v,  Stev- 

•hall  be  computed  at  the  place  and  enson,  —  Miss.  — ,  42  So.  670. 
time  of  shipment   is   reasonable  and 


510 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


bj  fire  without  negligence  on  its  part,  without  regard  to  a  stipula- 
tion in  its  receipt  that,  no  value  being  given,  it  would  be  liable  for 
only  fifty  dollars.^'  Plaintiff  shipped  a  package  of  furs,  worth 
$2,000  by  defendant  express  company.  Plaintiff  marked  no  value 
on  the  package  and  gave  none  in  her  communications  to  the  express 
company;  but  the  box  had  been  previously  used,  and  a  $150  valua- 
tion was  marked  thereon,  and  this  amount  was  stated  by  the  ex- 
press company  in  the  receipt  as  the  value  of  the  package.  Plaintiff 
accepted  the  receipt  without  demur,  and  after  the  loss  of  the  pack- 
age made  no  claim  of  mistake  in  valuation,  but  claimed  the  right 
to  recover  the  full  value  of  the  furs  in  spite  of  the  limitation  of 
liability  contained  in  the  receipt.  It  was  held  that  plaintiff's 
recovery  was  limited  to  $150.^*  A  limitation  of  an  express  car- 
rier's liability  to  fifty  dollars,  contained  in  a  contract  for  carriage, 
controls,  where  no  other  value  is  given.^^ 

§  32.  Limitation  of  amount  where  loss  is  caused  by  negligence  or 
w^rongful  act  of  carrier. 

A  clause  in  a  bill  of  lading,  providing  that  liability  was  released 
to  "  $5.00  per  hundred  "  by  reason  of  low  rate  and  that  shipper 
had  option  to  pay  higher  rate  without  limitation,  accepted  by  a 
shipper  of  household  goods,  is  not  effective  to  limit  the  liability 
of  a  carrier  as  to  damage  arising  from  its  own  negligence."    Where 

19.  Southern  Express  Go.  v.  389,  70  N.  Y.  Supp.  804,  aff'd  on 
Keeler,  109  Va.  459,  &4  S.  E.  38  opinion  below   172  N.  Y.   639,   65  N. 

20.  Tavlor  v.  Weir,  (C.  C,  Pa.)  E.  1113,  which  held  that  a  contract 
162  Fed  585;  Bates  v.  Weir,  105  N.  between  a  carrier  and  a  shipper  which 
Y.  Supp.  785,  121  App.  Div.  275.  attempted    to    limit    the    liability    of 

21.  Goodfield  v.  Platt,  130  N.  Y.  the  carrier  could  not  exempt  or 
SuT>p    180.  limit     the     liability     of      the     car- 

22.  Boyle  v.  Bush  Terminal  R.  Co.,  rier  for  its  own  negligence,  un- 
151  4pp.  Div-  (N.  Y.)  551,  136  N.  less  the  eontract  plainly  and  un- 
Y    SuT>p    355.  equivocally    made    reference    to    the 

In  this  case  the  CTourt  followed  and  negligence  of  the   shipper  as  one   of 

held  as  authority  as  to  its  own   and  the   causes    of    damage   a<s    to   which 

similar   facts   the  case  of   Bermel  v.  there   was   a   limitation   of   liability, 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  App.  Div.  and    disregarded    the    later    cases   of 


LIMITATION  OF  CARRIERS.  511 

express  receipts  stated  that  the  express  company  should  not  be 
liable  for  any  loss  caused  by  the  wrongful  or  negligent  action  of 
the  company's  agents  in  any  amount  exceeding  fifty  dollars,  unless 
the  true  value  was  stated  in  writing  and  an  additional  amount 
paid  under  special  agreement  at  the  company's  office,  loss  of  goods 
by  the  negligence  of  the  carrier's  agents  would  not  make  the  com- 
pany liable  for  more  than  the  stipulated  amount,  in  the  absence 
of  an  agreement  contemplated  by  the  receipt.^^  It  is  held  in  Ala- 
bama that  it  is  violative  of  public  policy  for  a  carrier,  as  a  paid 
bailee,  to  limit  the  extent  of  its  liability  for  the  negligence  of  itself 
or  its  agents  or  servants  by  an  agreed  valuation  upon  consideration 
of  reduced  charges  for  the  carriage  of  goods,  when  such  agreed 
valuation  is  disproportionate  to  the  real  value  of  the  goods,  though 
the  contents  of  the  package  or  its  real  value  be  not  disclosed  to 
the  carrier.^  Under  the  California  Civil  Code,  §  2175,  providing 
that  a  carrier  cannot  be  exonerated  by  any  agreement  from  liability 
for  gross  negligence,  a  contract  which  attempts  to  fix  a  liability 

Tewes  v.  North  German  Lloyd  S.  S.  had  said  that  the  Bermel  Case  "  must 

Co.,  186  N.  Y.  151,  78  N.  E.  864,  8  be  regarded  either  as  dccideid  on  the 

L.   R.   A.    (N.   S.)    199,   9   Ann.   Cas.  special   features  of  that  case  or  else 

909,  holding,  by  a  divided  court,  that  as  limited  in  its  application  to  a  ca»e 

a  passenger   who  had   delivered  bag-  like  the  present  one  by  our  decision 

gage  to  a  defendant  for  transporta-  in  the  Tewes  Case." 

tion   could   not   recover   damages   be-  See  also  Sec.  30,  supra. 

yond   the   amount   stipulated   in   the  23.  Rappaport  v.   White's   Express 

passage  ticket,  even  where  the  cause  Co.,  131  N.  Y.  Supp.  131,   146  App. 

of  the  loss  was  the  negligence  of  the  Div.  576. 

carrier,    and   no   reference    had    been  24.  Southern  Express  Oo.  v.  Gibbs, 

made  in  the  stipulation  a«  to  negli-  155  Ala.  303,  46  So.  465. 

gence  as  a  cause  of  loss,  and  Gardiner  The    Commodity    Act     (Gen.    Acta 

V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  201  1907,  p.  209),  and  Gen.  Acts  Sp.  Sesa. 

N.  Y.  387,  94  N.  E.  876,  34  L.  R.  A.  1907,     p.     125,     fixing     rates     to    be 

(N.   S.)    826,   holding,  by  a  divided  charged  by  railroads,  did  not  operate 

court,  that  a  passenger  suing  for  loss  to  validate  provisions  of  bills  of  lad- 

of  baggage  oould  not  recover  beyond  ing  exempting  carriers  from  liabil  ty 

the  amount  stipulated  in  the  passage  for  loss  of  goods,  except  @m  to   the 

ticket   even  where  the  loss  occurred  amount  stipulated  in  such  bills.   Ala« 

through  the  negligence  of  the  carrier,  bama  Great  Southern  R.  C5o.  v.  Mo. 

The  Court,  in  the  last  mentioned  case,  Cleskey,  160  Ala.  630,  49  So.  433. 


513  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

for  half  the  actual  value  of  the  property  carried,  or  any  other 
proportion  less  than  the  actual  value,  is  void.^^  An  action  of  trover 
will  lie  by  a  shipper  against  a  carrier  for  conversion  of  the  goods 
shipped,  and  recovery  may  be  had  for  the  full  vale  of  the  goods, 
where  the  goods  were  embezzled  by  an  employe  of  the  carrier, 
although  the  shipping  receipt  limits  the  liability  of  the  carrier  to 
a  specified  sum,  which  is  less  than  such  value.  Such  a  limitation 
applies  only  in  case  of  loss  of  the  goods  by  negligence.^^  Public 
policy  forbids  a  common  carrier,  by  a  mere  arbitrary  preadjust- 
ment  of  damages,  from  fixing  the  measure  of  its  liability  in  case 
of  loss  or  damage  to  goods  shipped,  though  an  agreement  in  good 
faith  that  the  goods  are  of  a  given  value  is  valid.^'^  Where  no  value 
is  placed  on  goods  shipped  by  an  express  company,  and  no  effort 
is  made  to  arrive  at  a  valuation,  the  fact  that  a  receipt  is  signed 
reciting  that  the  shipper  agrees  that  the  value  is  not  more  than 
fifty  dollars,  unless  a  greater  value  is  stated  in  the  receipt,  will 
not  relieve  the  carrier,  in  case  of  loss  resulting  from  negligence, 
from  liability  for  the  actual  value  of  the  goods.^^  A  contract  of 
shipment  made  with  an  express  company  by  a  consignor  in  another 
State  limiting  the  express  company's  liability  to  the  consignees  to 

25.  Donlon   Bros.  v.  Southern  Pac.  944,  the  statement  being  not  a  valua- 
Co.,  151  Cal.  763,  91  Pac.  603,  11  L.  tion,  but  an  arbitrary  limitation  upon 
R.     A.     (N".     S.)     811,    the     contract  the  carrier's  liability, 
establishing   the    value   will    be    con-  Shippers     of     stone     damaged     in 
strued  to  embrace  the  real  value.  transit  were  not  limited  in  their  re- 

26.  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Berry  &  covery  to  an  amount  stated  in  the 
\\'hitmore  Co.,  85  App.  D.  C.  203.  bills    of   lading,    if   such   damage   re- 

27.  Louisvill«  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  suited  from  the  carrier's  negligence. 
Tharpe,  11  Ga.  App.  465,  75  S.  E.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  Venable, 
677;  Central  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Butler  132  Ga.  501,  64  S.  E.  466. 

Marble   &    Granite    Co.,    8    Ga.    App.  Such  a  stipulation  as  to  the  value 

1,  68   S.  E.   775,   an   arbitrary  fixing  of   the   gcyoda    is   not   binding   on    the 

of  value  may  be   treated   as  a   mere  OAvner  unless  expressly  agreed   to  by 

attempt  in  advance  to  limit  liability.  him,  and  on  loss  of  the  goods  he  can 

28.  Adams  Express  Co.  v-  Cham-  recover  full  damage.  Southern  Ex- 
berlin-Johnsnn-DuBose  Co.,  138  Ga.  press  Co.  v.  Briggs,  1  Ga.  App.  294, 
455,  75  S.  E.  601;   Southern  Express  57  S.  E.  1066. 

Co.  V.  Hanaw,  134  Ga.  445,  67  S.  E. 


LIMITATION  OF  CARRIERS. 


513 


a  sum  less  than  the  actual  value  of  the  goods  is  contrary  to  public 
policy,  and  not  enforceable  in  the  State  of  Illinois.^'  In  Minne- 
sota, where  a  shipper  and  carrier  fairly  and  honestly  agreee  as  to 
the  value  of  the  property  to  be  shipped,  as  the  basis  of  the  car- 
rier's charges  and  responsibility,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  limit- 
ing the  amount  for  which  the  carrier  shall  be  liable  for  losses 
resulting  from  its  negligence,  such  agreement  is  valid,  and  the 
values  so  agreed  upon  will  be  the  limit  of  recovery.^''    A  carrier 


29.  Nonotuck  Silk  Co.  v.  Adaios 
Express  Co.,  256  111.  36,  99  N.  E. 
895,  affV  judg.  166  111.  App.  519;  Id., 
256  111.  76,  99  M.  E.  897,  aff'g  judg. 
166  111.  App.   525. 

A  consignee  who  has  not  partici- 
pated in  the  fraud  in  connection  with 
obtaining  a  low  rate,  and  who  haa 
not  assented  to  the  terms  of  limita- 
tion, is  not  barred  when  he  sues  for 
los3  resulting  from  negligence  of  the 
carrier.     Id. 

Under  the  laws  of  New  York,  in 
the  absence  of  fraud,  misrepresenta- 
tion, or  concealment,  the  acceptance 
of  such  express  receipt  containing 
limitations  upon  the  amount  of  the 
recovery,  unlesis  the  true  value  of  the 
merchandise  shipped  is  stated  in  the 
receipt,  is  valid  and  enforceable  as  a 
contract.  Ginsburg  v.  Adams  Ex- 
press Co.,  160  111.  App.  566. 

Hurd's  Rev.  St.  1905,  c.  27,  provid- 
ing that  when  property  is  received 
by  a  carrier  to  be  transported  it 
shall  not  be  lawful  for  the  carrier  to 
limit  its  common-law  liability  by  any 
stipulation  or  limitation  expressed 
in  the  receipt  given  for  the  property, 
renders  such  a  provision  in  an  express 
receipt  invalid  as  a  limitation  of  the 
carrier's  common-law  liability.  Cut- 
ter   v.   Wells,    Fargo   &   Co.,   237   111. 

33 


247,  86  N.  E.  695,  aff'g  judg.  Wells, 
Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Cutter,  140  111.  App. 
324. 

30.  Cole  V.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  Ry. 
Co.,  117  Minn.  33,  134  N.  W.  296; 
O'Connor  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co., 
120  Minn.  359,   139  N.  W.  618. 

Where  there  is  no  affirmative  show- 
ing that  the  exemption  is  just  and 
reasonable  the  clause  is  void.  Mur- 
phy v.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  99  Minn. 
230. 

A  contract  between  a  common  car- 
rier and  the  shipper,  limiting  the 
carrier's  liability  in  case  of  loss  to  a 
stipulated  valuation,  will  be  upheld, 
if  fairly  entered  into  by  the  shipper, 
and  also  just  and  reasonable.  Ost- 
root  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  Ill 
Minn.  504,  127  N.  W.  177. 

A  carrier  cannot,  by  placing  an  ar- 
bitrary value  upon  property  in  his 
possession  for  carriage,  limit  his  lia- 
bility for  loss  through  negligence. 
Porteous  v.  Adams  Express  Co., 
112  Minn.  31,  127  N.  W.  429. 

In  New  York,  where  a  carrier  lim- 
its his  liability  where  the  value  of 
goods  shipped  is  not  stated,  if  goods 
of  greater  value  are  so  delivered, 
silence  of  the  shipper  as  to  the  real 
value  is  held  a  legal  fraud,  which  dis- 
charges the  carrier  from  liability  for 


614 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


of  goods  can  limit  its  liability  for  negligence,  under  the  law  o£ 
Missouri,  when  the  shipper  fixes  a  valuation  upon  the  goods,  and 
agrees  that  the  carrier's  liability  shall  not  exceed  such  value,  where 
a  higher  rate  is  charged  on  goods  of  greater  value.^^  A  clause  in 
a  bill  of  lading  fixing  the  value  of  the  goods  shipped  will  not 
relieve  the  carrier  from  liability  for  the  full  value  of  the  goods,  in 
JSTorth  Carolina,  if  they  are  destroyed  or  injured  by  its  negli- 
^^     While,  in  South  Carolina,  a  carrier  cannot  by  contract 


sence. 


exempt  itself  from  liability  for  negligence,  it  and  the  shipper  may 
make  a  special  contract  upon  consideration  agreeing  on  a  valua- 
tion of  property  shipped  in  case  of  damage;  and  a  shipper  who 
by  special  contract  agrees  on  a  value  of  the  goods  in  case  of  loss, 
and  in  consideration  thereof  obtains  a  reduced  rate,  is  estopped 
from  showing  that  the  real  value  of  the  goods  was  greater  than 


ordinary  negligence  in  an  amount  in 
excess  of  the  limitation  of  the  eon- 
tract.  Porteous  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co., 
115  Minn.  231,  132  N.  W.  296. 

31.  Townsend  &  Wyatt  Dry  Goods 
Co.  V.  United  States  Express  Co., 
133  Mo.  App.  683,  113  S.  W.  1161; 
also  holding  that,  under  the  law  of 
New  York,  where  the  shipper  of  goods 
states  no  value,  the  carrier  is  liable 
for  the  actual  value  of  goods  negli- 
gently lost,  but  one  who  undervalues 
to  obtain  a  lower  rate  risks  the  dif- 
ference between  the  real  value  of  the 
goods  and  the  lesser  value  assumed 
in  the  carrier's  receipt.  Mires  v. 
St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  134  Mo.  App. 
379,  114  S.  W.  1052. 

A  stipulation  in  a  bill  of  lading 
that  the  damage  shall  be  computed 
at  the  value  of  the  goods  at  the  place 
and  time  of  shipment  is  valid  when 
fairly  made,  even  though  the  loss  oc- 
curs by  th'C  carrier's  negligence  and 
the  stipulation  is  not  supported  by  a 
reduced  rate  of  freight  or  other  spe- 


cial consideration.  Gratiot  Street 
Warehouse  Co.  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  Ry. 
Co.,  124  Mo.  App.  545,  102  S.  W.  11. 
But  such  a  provision  does  not  cover 
the  owner's  damages  from  delay  in 
tranaportation.  Morrow  v.  Missouri 
Pac.  Ry.  Co.,  140  Mo.  App.  200,  123 
S.  W.   1034. 

32.  J.  M.  Pace  Mule  Co.  v.  Sea- 
board Air  Line  Ry.  Co.,  160  N.  C. 
215,  76  S.  E.  513;  Herring  v.  At- 
lantic Caost  Line  R.  Co.,  160  N.  C. 
252,  76  S.  E.  527;  Stringfield  v. 
Southern  Ry.  Co.,  152  N.  C.  125,  €7 
S.  E.  333. 

Damages  to  property  injured  in 
transit  are  estimated  upon  the  net 
value  of  the  property  at  the  place  of 
delivery,  notwithstanding  a  stipula- 
tion in  the  bill  of  lading  that  the 
measure  of  damages  should  be  the 
value  at  the  point  of  shipment,  since 
such  stipulation  is  void,  as  limiting 
liability  for  negligence.  McConnell 
Bros.  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  144  N.  C. 
87,  56  S.  E.  559, 


LIMITATION  OF  CARRIERS. 


515 


that  contracted.^^  In  Texas  a  provision  in  a  bill  of  lading  that  the 
carrier  should  not  be  held  liable  beyond  fifty  dollars,  "  unless  the 
true  value  is  stated  therein,  and  an  extra  charge  paid,  based  upon 
such  higher  value,"  is  not  void  as  an  attempt  to  arbitrarily  limit 
liability  for  loss  from  negligence  without  regard  to  real  value,  and 
the  consignee  is  bound  thereby,  in  an  action  against  the  carrier  for 
injury  to  goods.^'*  But  a  carrier  having  an  opportunity  to  see  and 
know  the  nature  and  value  of  freight  to  be  carried  cannot  by  con- 
tract relieve  itself  from  liability  for  full  value  for  loss  through 
its  negligence.^  Under  Virginia  Code  1904,  §  1294c,  subsec.  24, 
declaring  that  any  carrier  issuing  its  receipt  shall  be  liable  for 
loss  or  damage  from  its  owa  negligence  or  the  negligence  of  any 
connecting  carrier,  and  that  no  receipt  shall  exempt  it  from  the 
liability  of  a  common  carrier,  the  provision  of  an  express  com- 
pany's  receipt  limiting  its  liability  to  a  certain  sum  unless   a 


33.  Black  v  Atlanfcic  Coast  Line 
R.  Co.,  82  S.  C.  478,  64  S.  E.  418; 
Faulk  V.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82 
S.  C.  309,  64  S.  E.  383. 

Where  one  delivered  to  an  express 
company  for  transportation  property 
worth  $700,  and  declared  a  valuation 
of  $400,  to  which  amount  the  car- 
rier's liability  was  thereby  limited, 
its  liability  in  case  of  a  loss  of  a 
part  oi  the  property  not  exceeding 
.?400  in  value  is  the  whole  value  of 
the  part  lost,  and  not  merely  four- 
sevenths  thereof.  Visanaka  v.  South- 
ern Express  Co.,  92  S.  C.  573,  75  S. 
v..  932.  See  also  De  Schamps  v.  At- 
lantic Coast  Line  R.  Co.,  84  S.  C. 
353,  66  S.  E.  414;  Matheson  v.  South- 
orn  Ry.  Co.,  79  S.  C.  155,  60  S.  E. 
437;  Hngiielet  v.  Warfield,  84  S.  C.  87, 
65  S.  E.  985.  as  to  measure  of  oon- 
Bignee's  damages. 

34.  Pacific  Express  Co.  v.  Ross, 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.)   154  S.  W.  340. 

Where  a  carrier  receiving  a  pack- 


age for  transportation,  under  a  con- 
tract stipulating  that  in  no  event 
should  it  be  liable  beyond  $50  at 
which  sum  the  property  was  valued, 
failed  to  deliver  the  package,  it 
breached  its  contract  and  became  lia- 
ble for  the  full  value  thereof  as 
against  the  defense  that  payment  of 
the  full  value  which  exceeded  $50 
would  make  it  liable  to  prosecution 
for  violation  of  the  law  requiring 
equal  charges,  because  the  charges 
were  based  on  a  $50  valuation.  Wells, 
Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Neiman-Marcus  Co., 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.)    125  S.  W.  614. 

A  stipulation  in  a  receipt  by  an  ex- 
press company  acknowledging  the 
receipt  of  a  package  for  transporta- 
tion for  delivery  that  in  no  event 
should  it  be  liable  in  excess  of  $50  at 
which  sum  the  property  was  valued, 
etc.,  is  void.     Id. 

35.  Galveston,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  Crip- 
pen,   (Tex.  Civ.  App.)   147  S,  W.  361. 


51(3  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

greater  value  was  declared  by  the  shipper,  would  furnish  no  de- 
fense to  the  shipper's  action  to  recover  the  value  of  goods  lost  or 
injured.^® 

§  33.  Stipulation  that  measure  of  damages  shall  be  invoice  value 
or  market  value  at  place  of  shipment. 
A  stipulation  or  clause  in  a  bill  of  lading  that,  in  case  of  loss, 
damage  or  non-delivery,  the  carrier  shall  not  be  liable  for  more 
than  the  invoice  value  of  the  goods,  or  that  the  value  of  the  goods 
shall  be  estimated  at  the  place  of  shipment,  instead  of  at  the  place 
of  destination,  is  valid,  when  freely  and  fairly  entered  into, 
whether  the  loss  be  the  result  of  the  carrier's  negligence  or  not.^^ 
The  courts  of  Texas,  however,  hold  that  any  contract  by  which  a 
carrier  receiving  freight  for  shipment  relieves  itself  from  liability 
for  the  full  value  for  loss  through  its  own  negligence  is  invalid, 
and  regard  such  a  stipulation  as  an  attempt,  on  the  part  of  the 
carrier,  to  limit  its  liability  for  the  consequences  of  its  own  negli- 
gence, and  for  that  reason  unlawful,  where  it  is  shown  that  the 
loss  was  the  result  of  the  carrier's  negligence."*     In  Minnesota  it 

36.  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Green,  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Go.  v.  Davis  (Tex. 
112  Va.  527,  72  S.  E.  102.  Civ.  App.),  31  S.  W.  308;   Galveston, 

37.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Erie,  etc.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ball,  80  Tex.  603; 
Transp.  Co.,  117  U.  S.  314;  The  Alme,  Fort  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Great- 
25  Fed.  562;  The  Lydia  Monarch,  23  house,  82  Tex.  104,  49  Am.  &  Eng. 
Fed.  298;  Rosenfeld  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Cas.  157;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
R.  Co.  (Ind.),  2  N.  E.  344;  South,  Fagan,  72  Tex.  127,  13  Am.  St.  Rep. 
etc.,  Alabama  R.  Co.  v.  Henlein,  52  776,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  666; 
Ala.  606,  23  Am.  Rep.  578,  56  Ala.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Key,  4  Tex.  App. 
368,  19  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  200;  Brown  v.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  257;  Southern  Pac.  R. 
Cunard  S.  S.  Co.,  16  N.  E.  717;  Co.  v.  Maddox,  75  Tex.  300,  42  Am. 
Rogan  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  51  Mo.  App.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  528 ;  Taylor,  etc.,  R. 
665;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Oden,  Co.  v.  Montgomery,  4  Tex.  App.  Civ. 
80  Ala.  38;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cas.,  §  238;  Taylor,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Harmon,  17  HI.  App.  640;  Caples  v.  Sublett  (Tex.  App.)  16  S.  W.  182; 
Tvouisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Mo.  App.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co,  v.  Edwards,  78 
j4  Tex.   307;    St.   Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

38.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wil-  Robbins,  4  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  43; 
liams  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  31  S.  W.  556;      International,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  Ander- 


LIMITATION  OF  CARRIERS.  517 

is  held  that  a  condition  in  a  bill  of  lading,  providing  that  the 
amount  of  loss  or  damages  incurred  by  the  carrier  shall  be  com- 
puted upon  the  value  of  the  property  at  the  place  of  shipment, 
and  which  makes  no  provision  for  repayment  of  the  freight  charges 
received  by  the  carrier  is  unreasonable,  against  public  policy,  and 
void.^*  In  some  jurisdictions  the  carrier  is  liable  for  the  actual 
damages  to  property  injured  in  transportation,  not  exceeding  the 
sum  named  in  a  stipulation  in  a  contract  of  shipment  limiting  its 
liability  and  fixing  such  sum  as  their  value,  although  the  property 
in  its  damaged  condition  sold  for  more  than  such  sum,*"  while  in 
others  the  shipper  is  only  entitled  to  recover  as  damages  for  the 
injury  an  amount  bearing  the  same  proportion  to  the  actual  dam- 
ages that  the  stipulated  value  bears  to  the  actual  value.*^  The 
provision  of  a  bill  of  lading  limiting  damages  for  injury  to  prop- 
erty during  transportation  is  waived  by  a  settlement  of  the  dam- 
ages, in  which  the  property  is  taken  and  a  larger  sum  agreed  to 
be  paid  therefor,*^  and  where  the  carrier  has  compromised  a  claim 
made  against  it,  it  cannot  afterwards  avoid  the  compromise  by 
claiming  that  it  finds  that  it  was  not  liable." 

§  34.  Construction  of  special  contracts. 

It  is  generally  held  by  the  courts,  upon  considerations  of  public 
policy  and  the  relative  position  of  the  parties  to  such  contracts, 

son,   3  Tex.   Civ.  App.   8;    Gulf,   etc.,  Co.,  91  Tenn.  516    19  S.  W.  675,  55 

R.    Co.  V.   Booton,   4   Tex.   App.   Civ.  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  354;  Georgia  R., 

Cas.,  §   230:   Eells  v.  St.  I^uis,  etc.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Reid,  91  Ga.  377,  17  S.  E. 

R.  Co.,  52  Fed.  903,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  934,  55  Am.     Eng.  R.  Cas.  363. 

R.  Cas.  339.  *!'  St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Les- 

Wliere   the   loss   is   not    shown    to  ser,  46  Ark.  236. 

have  been  caused  by  the  negligence  of  42.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Oo.   v.   Kat- 

the    carrier    such     a    stipulation     is  zenbach,  118  Ind.  174,  20  N.  E.  709, 

valid  and  binding.     Missouri  Pac.  R.  3S  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas,  375;  Interna- 

Co.  V.  Ryan,  2  Tex.  App.   Civ.  Cas.,  tional,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Underwood,  62 

§   430.  Tex.  21,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  143. 

39.  Shea    v.    Minneapolis,    etc.,    R.  43.  Grinnell  v.  Wisconsin  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  63  Minn.  228,  65  N.  W.  458.  Co.,  47  Minn.   569. 

40.  Starnes   v.    Tjouisville,    etc.,   R. 


;i8 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


that  clauses  inserted  in  a  contract  granting  immunity  to  the  carrier 
from  its  common  law  obligations,  should  be  strictly  construed 
against  the  carrier,  whose  language  they  are  presumed  to  be  and 
who  is  in  an  advantageous  position  in  fixing  the  terms  of  the  con- 
tract. "Without  such  restrictive  clauses  the  carrier  would  be  liable, 
and  to  render  them  valid,  they  must  be  clearly  within  the  meaning 
and  intent  of  the  parties,  reasonable  in  themselves,  and  not  against 
public  policy.''*  Such  clauses  must  be  clear  and  distinct  expres- 
sions, free  from  ambiguity,  leaving  nothing  to  implication  or  in- 
ference.*^ The  contract,  so  far  as  it  purports  to  exempt  the  carrier 
from  liability  for  its  negligence,  must  be  construed  so  as  not  to 
include  any  kind  or  sort  of  negligence  not  specifically  and  expressly 
stated  in  it.  However  broad  or  general  may  be  the  language  of 
the  contract  which  does  not  specifically  and  in  express  terms  re- 
lease the  carrier  from  the  consequences  of  his  ovm  negligence,  it 
will  not  effect  such  release,  if  the  general  words  may  operate  with- 


44.  Bermel  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  172  N.  Y.  639,  65  N.  E.  1113, 
atrg.  62  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  389,  70 
N.  Y.  Supp.  804;  Westcott  v.  Fargo, 
61  N.  Y.  542,  19  Am.  Rep.  300;  My- 
rard  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  N. 
Y.  ISO,  27  Am.  Rep.  28;  Edsall  v. 
Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  661; 
Alexander  v.  Greene,  7  Hill  N.  Y. 
633;  Steele  v.  Townsend,  37  Ala. 
255,  79  Am.  Dec.  49;  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Meyer,  78  Ala.  600;  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Touart,  97  Ala. 
514,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  500; 
Hooper  v.  Wells,  27  Cal.  11,  85  Am. 
Dec.  211:  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Davis,  159  111.  53;  Atwood  v,  Reli- 
ance  Transp.  Co.,  9  Watts  (Pa.)  87, 
34  Am.  Dec.  503;  Deming  v.  Mer- 
chants' Cotton-Press,  etc.,  Co.,  90 
Tenn.  306;  Thomas  v.  Lancaster 
Mills,  71  Fed.  481;  Cream  City  R. 
Co.  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  63   Wis. 


93,  53  Am.  Rep.  267;  Hawkins  v. 
Great  Western  R.  Co.,  17  Mich.  57, 
97  Am.  Dec.  179;  Kansas  City,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Holland,  68  Miss.  351; 
INIenzell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 
Dill  {JJ.  S.)  531;  Coupland  v.  Housa- 
tonic  R.  Co.,  61  Conn.  531. 

45.  Westcott  V.  Fargo,  supra;  Ber- 
mel V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  supra; 
New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Oo.  v.  Mer- 
chants' Bank,  6  How.   (U.  S.)   344. 

A  clause  in  a  bill  of  lading  provid- 
ing that  merchandise  on  wliarf, 
awaiting  shipment  or  delivery,  shall 
be  at  shipper's  risk  of  loss  or  dam- 
age by  fire  or  flood,  must  be  given 
the  meaning  the  language  plainly 
expresses,  and  is  applicable  where 
the  goods  were  burned  after  being 
placed  on  the  wbarf,  but  before  ship- 
ment. Wasliburne-Crosby  Co.  v. 
William  Johnson  &  Co.,  125  Fed. 
273,    60    C.    C.    A.    187. 


LIMITATION  OF  CARIIIERS. 


519 


out  including  such  negligence.^^  Some  of  the  rulings  of  the  courts 
as  to  exemptions  from  particular  risks  or  causes  of  loss  are  stated 
in  the  note  below."     Generally,  the  courts  will  not  construe  a 


46.  Kenny  v.  New  'York  Cent., 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  N.  Y.  422,  26  N.  E. 
626;  Holsapple  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
86  N.  Y.  278;  Nicholas  v.  New  York 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  89  N.  Y.  370;  Mynard 
V.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  N.  Y. 
180,  37  Am.  Rep.  28;  Zimmer  v.  New 
York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  N.  Y. 
462,  aflg.  42  St.  Rep,  (N.  Y.)  63,  16 
N.  Y.  Supp.  ~6fHr;  ilawkins  v.  Great 
Western  R.  Co.,  17  Mich.  57,  97  Am. 
Dec.  179;  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  An- 
derson, 59  Ga.  393,  16  Am.  Rep.  85. 

47.  Theft,  barratry,  etc. — Where  a 
quantity  of  gold  coin  was  shipped 
on  a  steamship,  under  a  bill  of  lading 
exempting  the  carrier  from  liability 
for  loss  by  "  barratry  of  master  or 
mariner.s,"  and  the  proof  indicated 
that  some  of  the  money  was  stolen 
on  the  passage  by  the  purser,  the 
loss  was  held  to  be  within  the  ex- 
emption. Spinetti  v.  Atlas  Steam- 
Bliip  Co.,  BO  N.  Y,  71,  36  Am.  Rep. 
579,  following  the  doctrine  laid  down 
as  to  similar  clauses  in  a  policy  of 
insurance  in  American  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Bryan,  1  Hill   (N.  Y.),  25,  26  Wend. 

(N.  Y.)  563  37  Am.  Dec.  278;  At- 
lantic  Ins.   Co.   V.   Storrow,    5   Paige 

(N.   Y.)    285,   and   controverting  the 

contrary  doctrine  of  the  English 
cases,  De  Rothschild  v.  Royal  Mail 
Packet  Co.,  7  Exoh.  734,  21  L.  J. 
Exch.  273;  Taylor  v.  Liverpool,  etc.. 
Steam  Co.,  L.  R.  9  Q.  B.  546,  22  W. 
R.   752,  43  L.  J.  Q.  B.  205. 

Limiting  liability  after  freight 
had  reached  its  destination. —  Not- 
v(  it'.standing  a  bill  of  lading  provided 


that  the  railroad  company  would  not 
be  liable  as  a  common  carrier  after 
the  freight  had  reached  its  destina- 
tion, public  policy  so  modified  the  con- 
tract as  to  give  the  consignee  a  rea- 
sonable time  within  which  to  remove 
the  goods  after  arrival  before  such 
liability  ceased.  Tallassee  Falls  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Western  Ry.  of  Alabama 
(Ala.),  29  So.  203.  See  allso,  Ayres 
V.  Western  R.  Corp.,  14  Blatchf.  (U. 
S.)    9;    The  Majestic,   56   Fed.  244. 

Loss  of  cotton  by  fire. — ^A  provision 
of  a  bill  of  lading  that  "  cotton  is 
excepted  from  any  clause  herein  on 
the  subject  of  fire,  and  the  carrier 
shall  be  liable  as  at  common  law  for 
loss  or  damage  of  cotton  by  fire," 
aflects  not  only  such  other  provisions 
of  the  contract  as  relate  to  the  sub- 
ject of  fire,  but  the  latter  clause  ap- 
plies to  all  other  provisions  which 
modify  the  common-law  liability  of 
the  carrier,  such  as  that  it  shall  not 
be  liable  for  loss  or  damage  to  the 
property  after  it  is  ready  for  de- 
livery to  another  carrier  or  the  con- 
signee, or  shall  only  be  liable  under 
certain  circumstances  as  warehouse- 
man; and  where  the  subject  of  the 
shipment  is  cotton,  and  it  is  destroyed 
by  fire,  the  liability  of  the  carrier  is 
in  all  respects  governed  by  the  com- 
mon law.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Oal- 
lendar,  98  Fed.  538,  39  C.  C.  A.  154. 

Cases  where  loss  of  cotton  by  fire 
while  in  a  compress  not  owned  or 
operated  by  the  carrier  have  been 
held  within  an  exemption  in  the  bill 
of    lading   are:      Lancaster    Mills    v. 


520 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


contract  so  as  to  render  it  illegal  if  it  will  bear  another  construc- 


Iklerchants'  Cotton-press  Co.,  89 
Tenn.  1,  24  Am.  Rep.  586,  45  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  423;  Missouri  Pac.  R, 
Co.  V.  Sherwood,  84  Tex.  125.  Com- 
pare Deming  v.  Merchants'  Cotton- 
press  Co.,  90  Tenn.  306. 

Breach  of  agreement  to  furnish 
cars. — A  limitation  from  liability  con- 
tained in  a  drover's  pass  does  not 
constitute  a  defense  to  a  breach, 
prior  to  its  delivery,  of  an  agreement 
to  furnish  cars  for  transportation. 
Hastings  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
53  Hun  (N.  Y.),  638,  6  N.  Y.  Supp. 
836. 

Dangers  of  fire,  collision  and  navi- 
gation.— Such  a  clause  will  embrace 
a  loss  caused  by  the  vessel's  running 
into  a  newly  formed  sand  reef,  no 
negligence  on  the  part  of  the  carrier 
being  shown.  Hibernia  Ins.  Co.  v. 
St.  Louis  Transp.  C^.,  120  U.  S.  166; 
Selby  V.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
113  N.  0.  588.  But  it  is  not  applic- 
able to  a  loss  by  fire  after  the  goods 
have  been  unloaded  and  stored  in  a 
•warehouse,  but  only  to  loss  by  fire 
occurring  on  shipboard.  Black  v. 
Ashley,  80  Mich.  90,  42  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  428. 

"  Unavoidable  dangers  of  river 
navigation  excepts!  "  will  cover  a  loss 
through  collision  with  another  boat, 
through  the  negligence  of  such  other 
boat,  and  without  fault  on  the  part 
of  the  contracting  carrier.  Hayes  v. 
Kennedy,  2  Pittsb.    (Pa.)    262. 

An  exception  from  "  dangers  of  the 
river"  will  not  cover  a  loss  of  goods 
by  robbery,  or  forcible  or  illegal 
seizure  without  fault  or  neglect  of 
the  carrier.     Boon  v.  Steamboat  Bel- 


fast, 40  Ala.  184,  88  Am.  Dec.  161. 
See  also,  Steele  v.  McTyer,  31  Ala. 
677,  70  Am.  Dec.  516. 

An  exception  of  losses  from  "  stow- 
age "  or  from  "  perils  of  the  sea  "  will 
not  cover  an  injury  to  cattle  through 
the  insufficiency  of  the  cattle  fittings. 
The  Brantford  City,  29  Fed.  373.  An 
exemption  from  losses  caused  by  "  any 
act,  neglect  or  default  whatever  of 
master  or  crew  in  the  navigation  of 
the  ship  and  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  the  voyage  "  will  not  include  such 
an  injury  after  the  ship  had  reached 
lier  destination  and  while  the  cargo 
was  being  discharged.  The  Accomac, 
15  Prob.  Div.  208.  But  see  The  Car- 
ron  Park,   15  Prob.  Div.  203. 

Injury  received  "  while  at  depots." 
— A  clauHe  excepting  from  "  damages 
incids'iit  to  7ailroad  transportation, 
loss  or  dr.mage  by  fire,  or  the  ele- 
ments, while  at  depots  exc'^'pted,"  re- 
fers only  to  dvipots  en  route  to  the 
place  of  destination  and  not  to  the 
depot  at  the  end  of  the  route.  E.  O. 
Stannard  Milling  Co.  v.  White  Line 
Cent.  Transit  Co.,  lf:2  Mo.  258,  61 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  192. 

"  Accidents  to  boilers  or  machinery" 
includes  the  breaking  of  the  axle  of 
a  car.  Fairbank  v.  Cincinnati,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  66  Fed.  471. 

Exemption  from  "  damage  or  loss 
by  reason  of  breaking,  chafing, 
weather,  fire  or  water"  will  not  in- 
clude breaking  of  an  animal's  leg, 
caused  by  its  being  thrown  down  by 
a  violent  side  movement  of  the  car. 
Menzell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Dill. 
(U.  S.)   531. 

Exemption   from   "loss   on   perish- 


LIMITATION  OF  CARRIERS.  521 

iion,  as  for  example,  where  the  carrier  is  exempted  from  liability 
for  certain  specified  causes,  the  contract  will  not  be  construed  to 
relieve  it  from  ordinary  negligence  on  its  part,*^  and  where  the 
contract  relieves  it  from  negligence,  it  will  not  be  held  to  exempt 
the  carrier  from  liability  for  wilful  acts  or  misconduct/'  The 
validity  of  a  contract  of  shipment,  fixing  the  value  of  the  property 
shipped,  depends  on  the  facts  connected  therewith;  and,  the  issue 
of  its  invalidity  being  tendered  by  plaintiff,  he  is  entitled  to  have 
it  determined  as  an  issue  of  f  act.^"  A  provision  limiting  a  carrier's 
liability,  purporting  to  have  been  entered  into  as  a  basis  for  his 
charges,  is  not  conclusive  on  the  question  whether  it  was  fairly 
entered  into,  but  extrinsic  evidence  is  admissible  in  determining 
that  question/^  Though  contracts  limiting  the  liability  of  com- 
mon carriers  are  strictly  construed  against  the  carrier,  evidence 
and  findings  in  cases  involving  the  construction  of  such  contracts 
are  not  measured  by  any  different  rules  than  in  cases  to  which 
carriers  are  not  parties.^^ 

§  35.  When  stipulations  of  contract  become  inoperative. 

Limitations  in  a  contract  of  shipment  upon  the  liability  of  the 
carrier  are  rendered  inoperative  and  the  shipper  released  there- 
from, the  carrier  becoming  subject  to  its  full  common  law  lir.bility 
as  an  insurer,  where  it  deviates  from  the  contract  by  carrying  the 
property  by  freight,  instead  of  complying  with  the  provision  that 

able  property"  will  not  include  ma-  41   Conn.   333,   6  Am.  Ry.  Rep.   93; 

ture,     merchantable     corn.       Illinois  Nicoll  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  McClellan,  54  111.  58,  89  Ga.  260. 

5  Am.  Rep.  83.  49.  Ronan  v.  Midland   R.    Co.,   L. 

The  words  "  contents  and  value  un-  R.  14  Ir.  157. 

known,"  intended  to  apply  to  pack-  50.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keve- 

ages  the  contents  of  which   are  con-  kordes  (Ind.  App.),  69  N.  E.  102^. 

cealed,  will  not  cover  a  shipment  of  51.  O'Malley  v.  Great  Northern  R. 

corn  in  bulk,  the  character  of  which  Co.,  86  Minn.  580,  90  N.  W.  974. 

is  obvious  to  the  carrier.     Tibbits  v.  52.  Adams    Express  Co.    v.    Carna- 

Rock  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  111.  App.  han    (Ind.   App.),   63   N.   E.   245,   64 

537.  N.  E.  647. 
I       48.  Welch  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.   Co., 


g22  THE  LAW  OF  CAKRIERS. 

it  shall  be  carried  bj  passenger  train  service,^  or  in  failing  to 
carry  the  shipper,  where  by  its  terms  he  is  entitled  to  ride  free 
on  the  train  with  his  stock.^* 

§  36.  Fraudulent  concealment  or  misrepresentation  of  value  by- 
shipper. 
A  carrier  has  the  right  to  demand  from  a  consignor  such  in- 
formation as  will  enable  it  to  decide  as  to  the  proper  compensation 
to  charge  for  the  risk,  and  the  degree  of  care  to  bestow  in  dis- 
charging its  trust;  and  a  limitation  of  its  liability  to  a  certain 
amount,  unless  the  value  of  the  goods  forwarded  is  truly  stated, 
if  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  consignor,  is  reasonable  and 
consistent  with  public  policy.^^    Where  the  consignor  ships  goods, 
taking  a  receipt  containing  such  a  stipulation  limiting  the  liability 
of  the  carrier,  and  fails  to  state  the  value,  and  in  consequence 
thereof  is  charged  a  less  premium  than  otherwise  would  have 
been  required,  independently  of  the  qualifying  words  in  the  re- 
ceipt, the  carrier  would  be  exempt  from  liability  on  the  ground 
of  want  of  good  faith  in  not  disclosing  the  value  of  the  goods.^*^ 
If  the  shipper  use  any  artifice  whatever  to  conceal  from  the  car- 
rier the  true  value  of  the  contents  of  a  package  delivered  to  it  for 
transportation,  the  carrier  is  relieved  from  liability  for  ordinary 
neoiio-ence  to  a  greater  extent  than  the  value  indicated  by  the 
external  appearance  of  the  package,  or,  where  there  is  a  contract 
limiting  liability  to  a  specified  amount,  to  a  larger  amount  than 

53.  Pavitt  V.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  83  Pa.  St.  316;  Little  v.  Boston,  etc., 
Co.,  153  Pa.  St.  302,  32  W.  N.  C.  65,  R.  Co.,  66  Me.  239 ;  Norfolk,  etc.,  R. 
25  Atl    1107.  ^-  ^*  Irvine,  85  Va.  217. 

54.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  2  56.  Oppenheimer  v.  United  States 
Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  191.  Express   Co.,   supra;  Graves  v.   Lake 

55.  Oppenheimer  v.  United  States  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  Mass.  33,  16 
Express  Cx).,  69  111.  62 ;  Magnin  v.  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  108,  50  Am.  Rep. 
Dinsmore,  51  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  457;  282;  J.  J.  Douglass  Co.  v.  Minnesota 
Baldwin  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Steam-  Transfer  R.  Co.,  62  Minn.  288; 
ship  Co.,  74  N.  Y.  125,  30  Am.  Rep.  M'Cance  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  H. 
277-   Brown  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  &  N.  477. 


LIMITATION  OF  CARRIERS.  523 

is  specified  in  the  contract,"  and  is  liable  only  in  case  of  a  con- 
version, or  gross,  wanton  or  wilful  negligence  for  the  full  value.^' 
This  qualification  is  just  and  reasonable.  There  is  no  justice  in 
allowing  the  shipper  to  be  paid  a  large  value  for  an  article  which 
he  has  induced  the  carrier  to  take  at  a  low  rate  of  freight  on  the 
assertion  and  agreement  that  its  value  is  a  less  sum  than  claimed 
after  loss.  Such  a  concealment  of  the  value  of  an  article  destroys 
all  just  claim  to  indemnity,  for  it  goes  to  deprive  the  carrier  of 
the  compensation  it  is  entitled  to,  in  proportion  to  the  value  of  the 
article  intrusted  to  its  care  and  the  consequent  risk  it  incurs,  and 
it  tends  to  lessen  the  viligance  the  carrier  would  otherwise  bestow. 
The  shipper  has  no  right,  in  order  to  cheapen  the  freight,  which 
is  the  usual  inducement,  to  expose  the  carrier  to  an  increased  risk, 
as  must  inevitably  be  the  case  where  the  nature  and  value  of  the 
article  are  studiously  concealed.  The  strict  rule  of  the  carrier's 
liability  is  for  this  reason  subject  to  this  qualification  that  the 
shipper,  in  such  cases,  cannot  hold  the  carrier  liable  for  the  loss 
of  his  goods  beyond  their  apparent  value,  or  the  agreed  value 
specified  in  the  contract.^^     The  courts  do  not  state  accurately 

57.  Warner     v.     Western     Transp.  Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.    623;    United 

Co.,    5    Robt.    (N.    Y.)    4r90;    Orange  States      Express      Co.      v.      Koerner 

County  Bank  v.  Brown,  9  Wend.   (N.  (Minn.),    68   N.   W.   608;    Gibbon   v. 

Y.)    116,    24   Am.   Dec.    129;    Pardee  Paynton,    4    Burr,    2298;    Crouch    v. 

V.    Drew,    25     Wend.     (N.  Y.)     459;  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  C.  B.  255,  78 

Hayes  v.  Wells,  23  Gal.  185,  83  Am.  E.  O.  L.  255,   18  Jur.   148,   7   Railw. 

Dec.    89;     Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.  Cas.    717;     Edwards    v.    Sherratt,    1 

Thompson,   19   111.   578;    St.   John   v.  East   604;    Eatson  v.   Donovan,   4   B. 

Southern  Express  Co.,  1  Woods    (U.  &  Aid.  21,  6  E.  C.  L.  373;   Belfast, 

S.),   612;   The   Ionic,   5   Blatchf.    (U.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keys,  9  H.  L.  Cas.  556; 

S.)   538;  Everett  v.  Southern  Express  Bradley  v.  Waterhouse,  M.  &  M.  154. 

Co.,  46  Ga.  303;   Phillips  v-  Earle,  8  58.  Rice    v.    Indianapolis,    etc.,    R. 

Pick.   (Mass.)   182;  Earnest  v.  South-  Co.,  3  Mo.  App.  27;   Zouch  v.  Chesa- 

em  Express   (3o.,  1  Woods    (U.   S.),  peake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  W.  Va.  524,  49 

573;    South,  etc.,  Alabama  R.  Co.  v.  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.   712.     See  other 

Henlein,    52   Ala.    606,   23   Am.    Rep.  cases  cited  in  notes  to  this  section. 

578,  56  Ala.  368;  Cooper  v.  Berry,  21  59.  Hart    v.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co., 

Ga.  526,  68  Am.  Dec.  468;  Charleston,  112  U.  S.  331,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Moore,  80  Ga.  522,  35  604;   Relf  v.  Rapp,  3  W.  &  S.    (Pa.) 


524  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

what  will  amount  to  fraudulent  concealment,  but  it  is  lield  that 
fraud  may  be  as  effectually  practiced  on  the  carrier  by  silence  as 
by  a  positive  and  express  representation,  and  a  neglect  or  failure 
to  disclose  the  real  value  of  a  package  and  the  nature  of  its  con- 
tents, if  there  be  anything  in  its  form,  dimensions  or  outward 
appearance  calculated  to  deceive  and  mislead  the  carrier  in  fraudu- 
lent concealment.^"  And  mere  silence  on  the  part  of  the  shipper 
as  to  the  real  value  of  the  goods,  although  there  was  no  inquiry 
by  the  carrier  and  no  artifice  used  to  deceive,  has  been  held  to 
be  concealment  without  design,  by  failure  to  observe  an  implied 
condition  that  the  contract  of  carriage  is  free  from  misrepre- 
sentation or  concealment,  which  will  relieve  the  carrier  from  a  loss 
caused  by  ordinary  negligence.^^  A  carrier  carrying  goods  of 
much  greater  value  than  they  were  represented  to  be,  and  at  the 
rate  chargeable  for  a  package  of  the  value  represented,  cannot 
recover  the  additional  compensation  which  would  have  been 
charged  for  the  package  if  its  true  value  had  been  stated,  since 
its  liability  cannot  exceed  the  value  represented,  but  is  entitled  to 
compensation  for  the  increase  of  risk  of  loss,  up  to  that  amount,  by 
reason  of  the  greater  value  of  the  package.^"     And  where  a  com- 

21,  37  Am.  Dec.  528,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  of  concealment  or  fraud  in  so  doing 

R.  Cas.  73;    Ooxe  v.  Heisley,   19   Pa.  where  the  trunk  is  shipped  as  freight. 

vSt.  243;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shea,  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  York   (Tex.), 

66  111.  471;   Harvey  v.  Terre  Haute,  18  Am.  &  Eng.   R.  Cas.   623;   Belger 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Mo.  541,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  v.   Dinsmore,   51  N.  Y.   166,   10  Am. 

R.  Cas.  293;  Hyde  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Rep.    575;    Dunlap   v.    International, 

Steamship   Co.,   17  La.  Ann.  29;    El-  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Mass.  371. 

kins  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  N.  H.  60.  Shackt  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co., 

337,  51  Am.  Dec.  184;  Savannah,  etc.,  94  Tenn.  665,  disapproving  Kuter  v. 

R,  Co.  V.  Collins,  77  Ga.  376,  4  Am.  Michigan    Cent.   R.   Co.,   1    Biss.    (U. 

St.  Rep.  87;   Gait  v.  Adams  Express  S.)    35;   Rosenfeld  v.  Peoria,  etc.,  R. 

Co.  McArthur  &  M.    (D.  C.)    124.  Co.,  103  Ind.  121,  53  Am.  Rep.  500, 

A    distinction    between    money    as  21  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Oas.  89. 

baggage  and  as  freight  is  made  by  61.  Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  62  N.  Y. 

the  courts.     A  passenger  may  place  35,   20  Am.   Rep.  42,  70  N.  Y.  410, 

a  reasonable  amount  of  money  in  his  26  Am.  Rep.  608. 

trunk     without    communicating     the  62.  United    States    Express    Co.    v. 

fact  to  the  carrier,  but  be  is  guilty  Koerner,   65  Minn.  540,   33  L.  R.  A. 


LIMITATION  OF  CARRIERS.  535 

mon  carrier  received  a  package  for  transportation,  agreeing  to 
carry  it  for  a  stipulated  sum  prepaid,  without  inquiry  into  its 
value,  or  notice  of  a  limited  liability  on  account  of  value,  and 
without  misrepresentation,  deceit  or  artifice  on  the  part  of  a  ship- 
per, and  discovering  that  the  package  was  of  greater  value  than 
it  supposed,  refused  to  deliver  it  to  the  consignee  without  addi- 
tional compensation,  which  the  consignee  paid,  the  latter  may 
maintain  an  action  to  recover  it  back.^^  But  a  consignee,  though 
a.  factor  only,  is  liable  for  any  balance  if  freight  due,  according  to 
the  statements  in  the  bill  of  lading,  on  account  of  the  excess  of  the 
real  value  of  the  goods  over  that  named  in  the  bill  of  lading,  which 
was  known  to  him  but  concealed  from  the  carrier,  although  on 
delivery  of  the  goods  he  paid  all  the  freight  which  the  carrier 
then  supposed  to  be  due.^ 

§  37.  Carrier's  duty  to  inquire  as  to  value  of  property. 

Where  a  carrier  has  given  no  notice  limiting  its  liability  or 
imposing  any  condition  on  the  shipper  of  property  to  disclose  its 
value,  it  becomes  its  duty  if  it  desires  to  be  informed  of  such 
value  to  make  inquiry,  and  having  accepted  the  goods  for  carriage 
without  seeking  such  information  and  without  qualification,  it 
would  be  presumptively  liable  as  a  common  carrier  upon  common 
law  principles,  for  a  full  value.  Thus,  under  a  receipt  for  an 
article  of  furniture  capable  of  containing  other  goods,  the  carrier 
is  liable  for  the  contents,  where  there  is  no  fraud.^^     But  if  any 

600,  4  Am.  &  Eng.  Corp.  Oas.  N.  S.  44  Fed.  100,  10  L.  R.  A.  814.  And 
646,  68  N.  W.  181.  But  see  Rice  v.  see  Gates  v.  Ryan,  37  Fed.  154;  Neil- 
Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Mo.  App.  sen  v.  Jessup,  30  Fed.  138;  The  Ber- 
27;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trinity  muda,  29  Fed.  399;  Ehvell  v.  Skiddy, 
County  Lumber  Co.,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  77  N.  Y.  282;  The  Denmark,  27  Fed. 
553,  holding  that  the  carrier  may  re-  141;  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
cover  of  the  consignee  the  usual  Barnard,  3  Ben.  (U.  S.)  39;  Allen  v. 
charges.  Coltart,   11   Q.  B.  Div.  782;    Sanders 

63.  Baldwin      v.      Liverpool,      etc.,  v.  Vanzeller,  4  Q.  B.  294,  45  E.  C.  L. 
Steamship  Co.,  74  N.  Y.  125,  30  Am.  294. 

Rep.  277.  eS.  Harmon  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 

64.  North  German  Lloyd  v.  H°ule,      Co.,   28   Barb.    (N.  Y.)    323;    Walker 


526 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


means  were  used  to  conceal  the  value  or  nature  of  the  article,  as^ 
for  example,  the  delivery  of  a  trunk  without  any  information  as 
to  its  more  than  ordinarily  valuable  contents,  thereby  creating  tlie 
impression  that  it  contained  only  the  ordinary  baggage  of  a  pas- 
senger, this  would  be  a  fraudulent  concealment  which  would  re- 
lease the  carrier  from  liability  for  any  amount  in  excess  of  what 
is  ordinarily  carried  for  traveling  expenses  ;^^  or  where  the  ship- 
per deceives  the  carrier  by  his  o%vn  carelessness  in  treating  the 
parcel  shipped  as  a  thing  of  no  value.^^  Where  there  is  anything 
in  the  external  appearance  of  the  package  calculated  to  create  a 
doubt  as  to  its  value  or  indicating  that  it  contains  articles  of  great 
value,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  make  some  inquiry  of  the 
shipper;  it  cannot  claim  exemption  but  is  responsible  for  its  loss, 
in  the  absence  of  fraud,  imposition  or  disguise.^^  But  when  the 
value  appears  in  the  package  itself  and  the  carrier  can  determine 
it  for  itself  such  an  inquiry  would  be  useless,  and  a  voluntary 

69 

statement  unnecessary. 


V.  Jackson,  10  M.  &  W.  168;  Lebeau 
V.  General  Steam  Nav.  CJo.,  L.  R.  8 
C.  P.  88.  This  rule  does  not  extend 
to  carriers  of  letters,  it  being  prac- 
tically impossible  for  the  carrier  to 
make  inquiry  of  a  shipper.  Hayes  v. 
Wells,  23  Cal.  185,  83  Am.  Dec.  89. 

66.  Orange  County  Bank  v.  Brown, 
9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  85,  24  Am.  Dec. 
129;  Hawkins  v.  Hoflfman,  6  Hill  (N. 
Y.),  586;  Gait  v.  Adams  Express  Co., 
McArthur  &  M.    (D.  C.)    124. 

But  where  the  shipper  informed  the 
carrier  that  a  package  shipped  by 
him  was  valuable,  but  did  not  state 
that  it  contained  money,  fraud  could 
not  be  properly  imputed.  Allen  v. 
Sewall,  2  Wend.   (N.  Y.)   327. 

67.  Relf  V.  Rapp,  3  W.  &  S.  (Pa.) 
21,  37  Am.  Dec.  528;  Hart  v.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.,  112  U.  S.  331,  18 
Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas.   604;    Houston, 


etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Burke,  55  Tex.  323,  40 
Am.  Rep.  808,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
73. 

68.  Gorham  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Fargo,  45 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  90,  3  J.  &  Sp.  (N. 
Y.)  434;  Phillips  v.  Earle,  8  Pick. 
(Mass.)  182;  Merchants'  Despatch 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Bolles,  80  HI.  473; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  2  Tex. 
App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  512,  18  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  628 ;  Kuter  v.  Michigan  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  1  Biss.   (U.  S.)   35. 

69.  Van  Winkle  v.  Adams  Express 
Co.,  3  Robt.  (N.  Y.)  59;  Boscowitz 
V.  Adams  Express  Co.,  93  111.  523,  9 
Cent.  L.  J.  389,  34  Am.  Rep.  191,  5 
Cent.  L.  J.  58;  Dwight  v.  Brewster, 
1  Pic.  (Mass.)  50,  11  Am.  Dec.  133; 
Orndorff  v.  Adams  Express  Co.,  3 
Bush  (Ky.),  194,  96  Am.  Dec.  207; 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Crook,  44 
Ala.  468,   4  Am.  Rep.  140;   Moses  v. 


LIMITATION  OF  CAERIERS. 


527 


§  38,  Shipper's  duty  to  state  value  and  character  of  goods. 

It  is  well  settled  that  when  the  carrier  has  not  given  notice  that 
he  would  not  be  answerable  for  parcels,  beyond  a  specified  amount, 
unless  informed  of  the  value,  or  has  made  a  special  acceptance,  it 
is  not  the  duty  of  the  shipper  to  state  the  quality  or  the  value,  but, 
when  there  is  neither  notice  nor  special  acceptance,  the  carrier 
is  bound  to  make  inquiry  as  to  the  value  and  character  of  the 
article  or  package  received,  and  the  owner  must  then  answer  truly, 
at  his  peril.  And  if  such  inquiries  are  not  made,  and  the  prop- 
erty is  received  at  such  price  for  transportation  as  is  asked  with 
reference  to  its  bulk,  weight  or  external  appearance,  the  carrier 
is  responsible  for  its  loss,  whatever  may  be  its  value."''  But  an 
exception  to  the  rule  is  made  where  the  articles  are  dangerous 


Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  H.  71,  55 
Am.  Dec.  222. 

A  connecting  carrier,  having  no 
means  of  ascertaining  the  value  of 
packages  sihipped,  is  entitled  to  re- 
gard them  of  the  value  th«y  appear 
to  be,  no  value  being  stated  in  the 
bill  of  lading,  and  is  responsible  ac- 
cordingly. Marquette  v.  Kirkwood, 
45  Mich.  51,  40  Am.  Rep.  453,  9  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  85. 

70.  Baldwin  v.  Liverpool,  etc., 
Steamship  Co.,  74  N.  Y.  125,  30  Am. 
Rep.  277;  Gorham  Manf.  Co.  v. 
Fargo,  35  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  434; 
Sewall  V.  Allen,  6  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
349;  Hollister  v.  Nowlen,  19  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  234,  32  Am.  Dec.  455; 
Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Crook,  44 
Ala.  468,  4  Am.  Rep.  140;  Gait  r. 
Adams  Express  Co.,  MacArthur  &  M. 
(D.  C.)  124;  Merchants'  Despatch 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Bolles,  80  111.  473; 
Bosoowitz  V.  Adams  Express  Co.,  93 
111.  523,  34  Am.  Rep.  191,  16  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  102;  Parmalee  v.  Lo- 
witz,  74  III.    116.   24  Am.   Rep.   276; 


Baldwin  v.  Collins,  9  Rob.  (La.) 
468;  Fassett  v.  Ruerk,  3  La.  Ann. 
694;  Levois  v.  Gale,  17  La.  Ann.  302; 
Little  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Me. 
239;  Sheldon  v.  Robinson,  7  N.  H. 
157;  Brown  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
83  Pft.  St.  316;  Oamden,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Baldauf,  16  Pa.  St.  67,  55  Am. 
Dec.  481;  Relf  v.  Rapp,  3  W.  &  S. 
(Pa.)  21,  37  Am.  Dec.  528;  McCune 
v.  BurLington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Iowa, 
600;  Texas  Express  Co.  v.  Scott,  2 
Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  72;  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Clark,  2  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas. 
§  512,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  628; 
Batson  v.  Donovan,  4  B.  &  Aid.  29, 
6  E.  C.  L.  373:  Wallace  v.  Jackson, 
10  M.  &  W.  168;  Phillips  v.  Earle, 
8  Pick.  182;  Brooke  v.  Pickwick,  4 
Bing.  218,  13  E.  C.  L.  404;  Macklin 
V.  Waterhouse,  5  Bing.  212;  15  E.  C. 
L.  421,  2  M.  &  P.  319;  Sleat  v.  Fagg, 
5  B.  &  Aid.  342,  7  E.  C.  L.  123.  See 
Hayes  v.  Wells,  23  Cal.  185,  an  ex- 
press company  which  carries  letters 
is  not  liable  for  the  loss  of  any 
article  of  special   value  contained  in 


528 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


or  of  a  fragile  nature  requiring  special  care.'^  A  shipper  of 
goods  for  carriage  is  bound  by  an  agreed  valuation  in  the  bill  of 
lading,  and  a  stipulation  that  such  valuation  is  to  be  the  limit  of 
recovery  in  case  of  loss  -^"^  and  this  is  held  to  be  the  rule  where  he 
makes  a  statement  of  the  value  of  the  property  in  answer  to  the 
carrier's  inquiry,  although  he  did  not  suppose  that  his  statement 
would  affect  the  amount  of  the  carrier's  liability ;"  and  where  he 
is  silent  as  to  the  real  value,  when  he  accepts  a  receipt  containing 
such  a  stipulation,  although  there  is  no  inquiry  by  the  carrier,  and 
no  artifice  to  conceal  the  value  or  deceive  the  carrier.'^  The  pre- 
sumption of  law  is  that  a  party  receiving  an  instrument  of  this 
character  in  the  transaction  of  business,  in  the  absence  of  fraud, 
imposition,  concealment,  or  improper  practice  or  conduct  of  any 
kind  on  the  part  of  the  carrier  or  its  agents  in  the  progress  of  the 
transaction,  is  acquainted  with  its  contents.''^  And  understanding 
that  he  is  securing  transportation  at  a  reduced  rate  by  stipulating 
AS  to  value  and  assuming  a  portion  of  the  risk  of  carriage  himself, 
the  shipper  cannot  subsequently  insist  that  the  goods  are  of  greater 
value  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  his  claim  for  damages  for  the 
loss.^« 

a  letter  envelope,  unless  at  the  time  Minn.  288,  30  L.  R.  A.  860,  64  N.  W. 

of  its  delivery  to  them  they  are  in-  899,  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S,  671. 

formed  of  its  value.  73.  Coupland  v.  Housatonic  R.  Co., 

71.  American  Express  Co.  v.  Per-  61  Conn.  531,  15  L.  R.  A.  534,  23 
kins,  42  111.  458;  Crouch  v.  London,  Atl.  870,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  330. 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  C.  B.  255,  78  E.  C  L.  74.  Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  50  N.  Y. 
255',  18  Jur.  148,  7  Railw.  Gas.  717.  168,   62  N.  Y.   35,   30  Am.  Rep.  442, 

72.  Graves  v.  Lake   Shore,  etc.,  R.  70  N.  Y.  410,  26  Am.  Rep.  608. 
Co.,  137  Mass.  33,  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  75.  Belger   v.   Dinsmore,    51   N.  Y. 
Cas.   108,   50   Am.  Rep.   282;    Judson  166,  10  Am.  Rep.  575. 

V.  Western  R.  Corp.,  6  Allen   (Mass.),  76.  Durgin    v.    American     Express 

486,  83  Am.  Dec.  646;  J.  J.  Douglass      Co.,  66  N.  H.  277. 
Qo.  V.  Minnesota  Transfer  R.  Co.,  62 


CHAPTER    XI. 

Careier's  Kelation  to  Goods  and  Authority  of  Agents. 

Section     1,  Carrier's  relation  to  goods. — Rights  of  the  carrier. 

2.  Power  and  authority  of  carrier's  general  freight  agents. 

3.  Powers  and  authority  of  local  agents. 

4.  Authority  of  other  agents  and  employes. 

5.  Carrier  and  insurance  company. 

§  1.  Carrier's  relation  to  goods — Rights  of  the  carrier. 

A  com m on  carrier  cannot  sell  goods  so  as  to  divest  the  title  of 
the  consignee,  and  the  consignee  may  follow  up  the  goods,  and 
recover  them,  or  recover  the  price  thereof,  from  one  who  has  pur- 
chased of  the  carrier  and  sold  them.^  If  a  common  carrier  sells  the 
goods  intrusted  to  it  for  conveyance,  without  other  authority  than 
that  which  he  has  as  carrier,  he  can  pass  no  title.  Though  he  sells 
the  goods  for  a  fair  price  to  one  who  purchases  in  good  faith,  the 
title  of  the  owner  is  not  affected  by  the  sale,  and  the  purchaser  will 
be  responsible  to  him  for  them.^  But  the  carrier  has  the  right  and 
it  is  its  duty  to  sell  perishable  goods  for  the  benefit  of  their  owner 
when  their  further  transportation  becomes  impossible  and  they 
are  about  to  perish  from  decay.^  And  it  may  sell  goods  by  virtue 
of  its  lien  for  charges,  but  must  sell  them,  in  each  case,  in  the 
manner  prescribed  by  law.*  It  was  formerly  held  that  a  common 
carrier  could  not  dispute  the  shipper's  title  to  goods  delivered  to  it 
for  transportation,  and  could  not,  except  in  cases  of  fraud  or  insol- 
vency of  the  shipper,  have  an  interpleader  between  the  party  from 
whom  it  received  the  goods  and  an  adverse  claimant.^     The  best 

1.  Ely    V.    Ehle,     3     N.     Y.     506;       33  Ohio  St.  511,  31  Am.  Rep.  561. 
Orumbacker  v.  Tucker,  9  Ark.  3S5.  4.  See    Carrier's    lien    for   charges, 

2.  Bailey  v.   Shaw,   24  N.   H.   297,       chap.  16. 

55  Am.  Dec.  241.  5.  McGaw  v.  Adams,   14  How.  Pr. 

3.  American  Express  Co.  v.  Smith,        (N.  Y.)   461. 

34  (529) 


jjiiij  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

considered  cases  now  hold  that  the  right  of  a  third  person  to  which 
the  bailee  has  yielded,  by  delivering  the  property,  may  be  inter- 
posed in  all  cases  as  a  defense  to  an  action  brought  by  the  bailor 
subsequently  for  the  property,  and  that  when  the  true  owner  comes 
and  demands  his  property  it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  deliver 
it,  and  the  law  will  not  adjudge  the  performance  of  this  duty  tor- 
tious as  against  a  consignor  or  bailor  having  no  title.®  But  in  an 
action  for  negligence  in  not  delivering  goods  consigned  to  it  by 
the  plaintiff,  the  carrier  cannot  defend  by  showing  that  the  real 
title  to  the  property  is  in  a  third  person,  who  bailed  them  to  the 
consignor,  unless  the  property  has  been  taken  from  the  carrier's 
possession  by  the  bailor  without  injury  to  the  consignor.'  Where 
a  carrier  delivers  property  shipped  over  its  road  to  a  third  person, 
under  the  mistaken  belief  that  he  is  the  person  entitled  to  receive 
the  goods,  or  delivers  to  the  proper  person  without  requiring  the 
performance  of  conditions  required  precedent  to  delivery,  it  may 
maintain  an  action  to  recover  possession  but  cannot  do  so  on  a 
simple  demand  for  the  return  of  the  property,  without  returning 
to  such  third  person  the  freight  charges  paid  bj  him  on  the 
delivery  of  the  property.^     A  carrier  has  such  a  special  property 

6.  Western  Trans.  Co.  v.  Barber,  carrier  for  breach  of  the  contract  of 
56  N.  Y.  544;  Western  Transp.  Co.  carriage,  the  contract  having  been 
V.  Hoyt,  69  N.  Y.  830;  Mullins  v.  made  by  the  consignor.  If  he  has, 
Chickering,  110  N.  Y.  514;  German  in  fact,  no  interest,  he  may  recover 
Exchange  Bank  v.  Commissioners,  57  for  the  benefit  of  the  consignee  or  ac- 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  187,  6  Abb.  N.  C.  tual  party  in  interest.  Illinois  Cent. 
(N.  Y.)  394;  The  Idaho,  93  U,  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Schwartz,  13  111.  App.  -190. 
575,  23  L.  Ed.  978;  Knapp  v.  See  also.  Brill  v.  Grand  Trunk  R,  Co., 
Sprague,    9    Mass.    262;    Whittier   v.  20  U.  C.  C.  P.  440. 

Smith,  11  Mass.  210;  Ogle  v.  Atkin-  8.  Walker    v.    Louisville,    etc.,    R. 

eon,   5   Taunt.  759;    Wells  v.  Ameri-  Oo.,  Ill  Ala.  233,  4  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

can  Express  Co.,  55  Wis.  23,  6  Am.  Cas.  N,  S.  658,  20  So.  358;   Jones  v. 

&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  300,  42  Am.  Rep.  695;  Anderson,  82  Ala.  302;   Jeffersonville 

Sheridan  v.  New  Quay   Co.,   4  C.  B,  R.  Co.  v.  White,  6  Bush   (Ky.),  251; 

N.  S.  618,  93  E.  C.  L.  618;  Biddle  v.  Evans  v.  Gale,  17  N.  H,  573,  43  Am. 

Bond,  6  B.  &  S.  224.  Dec.     614;      Brown     v.    Hodgson.     4 

7.  Great    Western    R.    Oo.    V.    Mc-  Taunt.  189.     Compare  Young  v.  East 
Comas,  33  111.  185.  Alabama  R.  Co.,  80  Ala.  100. 

A    consignor   of   goods   may   sue   a 


CARRIER'S  RELATION   TO   GOODS,   ETC.  53^^ 

in  the  goods  thcat  it  may  maintain  an  action,  in  its  own  name,  for 
an  injury  to  property  intrusted  to  it  for  transportation.^  A  car- 
rier, though  it  has  not  received  freight,  or  paid  the  loss  may  yet 
recover  damages  from  another  who  has  caused  the  loss.^'*  If  the 
goods  are  wrongfully  taken  from  its  possession,  it  may  bring  action 
to  recover  possession  or  for  a  wrongful  conversion,"  and  will  be 
entitled  in  the  latter  action,  if  it  recover  the  full  value  of  the 
goods,  to  its  intel-est  in  the  goods,  and  will  hold  the  balance  in 
trust  for  the  owner,  unless  it  has  satisfied  such  o^vner  for  his  loss.^^ 
The  right  conferred  upon  the  carrier  by  reason  of  his  special 
property  is  not  inconsistent  with  a  co-existing  right  of  action  for 
the  same  cause  in  the  general  owner  ;^^  but  a  recovery  by  the  car- 
rier will  be  a  bar  to  a  subsequent  action  by  such  general  o^vner." 
The  damages  recovered  in  such  cases  take  the  place  of  the  prop- 
erty converted  or  destroyed,  and,  upon  satisfaction  of  the  judg- 
ment recovered  by  either,  the  title  to  the  property  passes  to  the 
party  against  whom  the  recovery  was  had.^^  The  rule  that  a  bailee 
cannot  plead  jus  tertii — a  right  of  property  in  a  third  person — 
against  his  bailor  applies  generally  to  common  carriers.^®  The 
reason  for  the  rule  is  that  by  such  a  plea,  the  bailee  or  the  common 

9.  Cliicago  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Kansas      Cow.   (N.  Y.)   670;  Lyle  v.  Barker,  5 
City   Suburban   Belt  R.   Co.,    78   Mo.      Bin.   (Pa.)   457. 

App.    245,    2    Mo.    App.    Repr.    204;  15.  Root    v.    Chandler,    10    Wend. 

Merrick   v.    Brainard,    38    Barb.    (N.  (N".   Y.)    110;    Strong  v.   Adams,    30 

Y.)    574;    Steamboat    Co.    v.    Atkins,  Vt.   221;    Spence  v.   Mitchell,   9   Ala. 

23  Pa.  St.  522;  The  Beaconsfield,  158  744;   Hart  v.  Hyde,  5  Vt.  328;   Bry- 

U.  S.  303.  ant    v.    Clifford,    13    Mete.     (Mass.) 

10.  White  V.  Bascon,  28  Vt.  268.  138:  Lovejoy  v.  Murray,  3  Wall.   (U. 

11.  Wingard    v.    Banning,    39    Cal.  S.)  1;  Overby  v.  McGee,  15  Ark.  459; 
543.  Bishell  v.  Huntingdon,  2  N".  H.  142; 

12.  Ingersoll    v.    Van    Bokkelin,    7  'Chesley  v.  St.  Clair,  1  N.  H.  189. 
Cow.   (N.  Y.)    670;   Woodman  v.  Not-  16.  The  Idaho,  93  U.  S.  575,  23  L. 
tingham,    49    N.    H.    387;    Steamboat  Ed.  978:  Valentine  v.  Lon?  Island  R. 
Farmer  v.  McCraw,  26  Ala.  189.  Co.,    187   N.   Y.    121,    79   N.    E.    849; 

13.  Booth    V.    Terrell,    16    Ga.    20;  Simpson  v.  Wrenn,  50  III.  222,  99  Am. 
Morgan  v.  Ide,  8  Cush.   (Mass.)   420.  Dec.  511;   Thompson  v.  Williams,   30 

14.  Ingersoll    v.    Van    Bokkelin,    7  Kan.  114,  1  Pac.  47;  Pulliam  v.  Bur- 

lingame.  81  Mo.  111.  51  Am.  Rep.  229. 


Kon  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

carrier  might  througli  the  claim  of  some  third  person  keep  the 
property  for  himself.  But  there  are  many  exceptions  to  this 
general  rule.  The  rule  does  not  apply  where  the  property  has 
been  taken  from  the  bailee  by  process  of  law,  or  by  a  person  having 
a  paramount  title,  or  where  the  title  of  the  bailor  has  terminated, 
or  where  the  bailor  was  himself  a  mere  agent  and  the  return  of 
the  property  to  him  has  been  forbidden  by  his  principal,  or  where 
it  appears  that  the  bailor  had  obtained  possession  of  the  property 
feloniously  or  tortiously  by  felony,  force,  or  fraud  and  the  prop- 
erty has  been  surrendered  to  the  owner  or  the  officers  of  the  law, 
or  where  the  true  owner  has  demanded  the  same  and  the  bailee 
has  surrendered  the  property  to  him."  The  rule  as  laid  down  in 
New  York  is  that  the  bailee  cannot  set  up  the  title  of  the  third 
person  against  his  bailor,  however  tortious  the  possession  of  the 
latter,  unless  the  owner  has  claimed  the  property,  and  the  bailee 
has  yielded  to  the  claim.^^  When  the  bailee  has  actually  delivered 
the  property  to  the  true  owner,  having  a  right  to  the  possession, 
on  his  demand,  it  is  a  sufficient  defense  against  the  claim  of  the 
bailor.  This  is  the  rule  as  it  exists  in  the  United  States.^^  In 
England  it  has  been  held  that,  in  an  action  by  the  bailor  against 
the  bailee,  the  latter  can  set  up  the  title  of  the  third  person  only 
when  he  depends  upon  the  right  and  title  and  has  the  authority 

n   ^.  Y.— Valentine  v.  Long  Island  Pa.— King    v.    Richards,    6    Whart. 

R    Co     187  N.  Y.  121,  79  N.  E.  849;  (Pa.)   418,  37  Am.  Dec.  420. 

Mullins  V.  Chickering,  110  N.  Y.  513,  Wis.— Wright  v.  Pratt,  31  Wis.  99. 

18  N   E   377,  1  L.  R.  A.  463 ;  Western  E7ig.—  Shelby   v.    Scotsford,   Yeber, 

Transportation  Co.  v.  Barber,   56  N.  23;   Ogle  v.  Atherson,  5  Taunt.  758; 

Y.    544,   Sedgwick   v.  Macy,   24   App.  Watson  v.  Anderton,  1  Barn.  &  Aid. 

Div.  1,49  N.  Y.  Supp.  154;  Bates  v.  450;    Hardman    v.    Willcox,   9   Bing. 

Stanton,  1  Duer   (N.  Y.),  79;   Edson  382. 

V     Weston,    7    Cow.     (N.    Y.)     278;  18.  Western  Transportation   Co.  v. 

Beardsley  'v.   Richardson,     11    Wend.  Barber,    56   N.   Y.   544;    Sedgwick   v. 

(N    Y.)    25.  Macy,  24  App.  Div.  1,  49  N.  Y.  Supp. 

jj/oss.—Edmunds  v.  Hill,  133  Mass.  154. 

445;    Whittier    V.     Smith,    11   Mass.  19.  The  Idaho,  93  U.  S.  575,  23  L. 

211;    Bursley   v.   Hamilton,    15   Pick,  Ed.  978. 
(Mass.)   40,  25  Am.  Dec.  423. 


CARRIER'S  RELATION  TO  GOODS,  ETC.         533 

of  that  person,  and  sets  up  the  right  for  the  benefit  of  that  person.^ 
But  where  the  carrier  received  the  property  for  transportation  in 
good  faith  without  knowledge  that  it  was  its  own  property  and 
thereafter  discovered  that  the  property  belonged  to  it,  it  may  avail 
itself  of  such  defense  with  the  same  force  and  effect  that  it  could 
avail  itself  of  the  right  of  a  true  owner  in  case  of  a  third  person.^^ 
If  a  person  not  the  o^vner  of  property  or  entitled  to  its  possession 
delivers  it  to  a  railroad  for  shipment,  the  true  owner,  who  is  no 
party  to  the  contract,  may,  before  delivery  by  the  carrier,  demand 
and  reclaim  his  property,  and,  as  against  an  action  of  trover 
brought  for  that  purpose  against  the  carrier  by  the  true  owner, 
it  is  no  defense  that  the  carrier  refused  to  recognize  his  title  or 
right,  and  carried  and  delivered  the  property  in  accordance  with 
the  shipment.^^  Since  a  common  carrier  is  a  bailee  for  hire,  it 
may  resort  to  any  means  to  protect  the  property  that  the  owner 
could  use,  and  may  recover  the  full  value  from  one  who  destroys 
it,  though  the  owner  might  also  have  an  action.^^ 

§  2.  Power  and  authority  of  carrier's  general  freight  agents. 

The  general  freight  agent  of  a  common  carrier,  in  the  absence 
of  any  notice  of  a  limitation  of  his  authority,  should  be  deemed,  as 
to  the  public  or  third  parties,  to  have  been  authorized  by  the  carrier 
and  clothed  with  all  the  power  to  make  contracts  for  freight,  or 
in  respect  to  the  carrying  and  delivery  of  freight,  that  the  carrier 
itself  has,  and  to  have  the  power,  therefore,  to  make  valid  con- 
tracts for  the  delivery  of  property  at  places  on  other  roads  beyond 
the  terminus  of  the  carrier's  own  route.^*     Contracts  made  by 

20.  Biddle  v.  Bond,  6  Best  &  S.  225;       of  Chicago,  242  III.  178,  89  N.  E.  1022, 
Thorne  v.  Tilbury,  3  Hurl.  &  N.  534;       affg.  144  111.  App.  293. 

Sheridan  v.   New  Quay  Co.,  4   C.  B.  24.  Burtis  v.  BuflFalo,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

(N.  S.)    232.  24   N.  Y.   274;    Grover   &   B.   Sewing 

21.  Valentine  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  Mach.  Co.  v.  Misouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  70 
187  N.  Y.  121,  79  N.  E.  849.  Mo.  672,  35  Am.  Rep.  444. 

22.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Haas,  The  generaH  eastern  freight  agent 
127  Ga.  187,  56  S.  E.  313.                         of  a  western  railroad  being  operated 

23.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v.  City      by  receivers,  having  his  office  in  New 


634 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


shipping  agents  of  carriers  within  reasonable  scope  of  their  em- 
ployment of  business  are  binding  on  the  carriers.^    An  agent  of  a 
railway  company,  having  authority  to  contract  to  place  cars  at 
points  other  than  stations  for  receiving  freight,  can  contract  to 
receive  such  freight  when  deposited  along  the  line  to  await  the 
arrival  of  cars.^^    A  railroad  agent  may  limit  the  company's  lia- 
bility for  negligence  to  its  own  line.^^     A  shipper  dealing  with 
one  who,  with  the  knowledge  of  his  principal,  publicly  advertises 
himself  as  the  general  agent  of  a  railroad  company,   both  for 
passengers  and  freight,  having  an  office  in  a  great  commercial 
center,  with  employees  under  him,   is  warranted  in  concluding 
that  he  had  authority  to  contract.^^    The  driver  of  an  express  com- 
pany's wagon  is  the  general  agent  of  the  company  for  the  purpose 
of  collecting  goods  for  transportation,  and  he  possesses  all  the 
necessary  implied  powers  within  the  scope  of  his  authority  for 
that  purpose,  so  that  the  company  is  bound  by  his  statement  that 
a  parcel  which  the  consignor's  agent  offered  to  re-mark  was  all 
right  without  re-addressing  it.     There  is  no  legal  rule  that  car- 
riers will  take  only  parcels  legibly  addressed,  or  that  parcels  with- 
out address  at  all  may  not  be  given  to,  and  taken  by,  the  carrier's 

York,  has  apparent  power,  by  virtue  a  year,  may  bind  the  company  by  a 

of   his   position,   to   contract   for   the  contract  to  furnish  a  certain  number 

through   carriage   of   goods,   over   his  of   cars,   on   a  specified   day,   for   the 

line  of  road  and  a  connecting  steam-  transportation   of   freight.     Baker   v. 

ship   line   across   the    Pacific,    and    a  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Mo.  152, 

contract  so  made  by  him,  when  clear  28  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  61. 

in  its  terms,  will  bind  the  receivers,  25.   Lincoln  Tent  &  Awning  Co.  v. 

when  the  shipper  has  no  notice  of  any  Missouri   Pac.  Ry.  Co.,   86  Neb.   338, 

limitation   on   his   authority,   and  no  125  N.  W.  603. 

knowledge  that  the  steamship  line  is  26.  Georgia  Southern  &  F.  Ry.  Co. 

not  owned  by   the  railroad   company  v.  Marchman,   121  Ga.  235,  48  S.  E. 

and  operated  by  the  receivers.    Farm-  961. 

ers  Loan  &  T.  Co.  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  27.  Miller  v.  Missouri.  K.  &  T.  Ry. 

Co.,   120   Fed.   873,   57   C.  C.  A.   533,  Co.,  157  Mo.  App.  638,  138  S.  W.  902. 

rev'g.    112   Fed.    829.     A   person   who  28.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elgin 

has  been  held  out  to  the  public  as  a  Condensed  Milk  Co.,  175  111.  557,  51 

general  freight  agent,  for  more  than  N.  E.  911,  affg.  74  II.  App.  619. 


CARRIER'S  RELATION  TO  GOODS,  ETC.         535 

driver.^^  If  two  or  more  carriers  are  copartners  for  transporting 
freight  over  their  respective  lines,  a  contract  made  by  the  agents 
of  one  of  them  with  a  shipper  binds  them  all,  in  the  absence  of 
a  stipulation  therein  to  the  contrary.^**  Where  a  railroad  corpora- 
tion is  operated  in  connection  with  other  roads,  and  is  a  part  of 
the  system,  it  is  bound  by  the  acts  and  declarations  of  the  agents 
of  other  companies  which  form  a  part  of  such  system,  and  which 
are  made  to  induce  shipments  over  the  system.^^  An  agent,  em- 
ployed to  solicit  traffic  for  a  foreign  railroad  company  having  no 
line  of  road  in  the  State,  has  implied  authority  to  bind  his  prin- 
cipal for  the  safe  delivery  of  goods  at  a  point  beyond  its  owm  lines, 
and  tor  contract  over  what  road  beyond  that  line  the  property  shall 
be  transported.^^  But  a  general  agent  for  the  State,  of  a  common 
carrier,  has  no  apparent  authority  to  waive  in  favor  of  a  particu- 
lar shipper  a  condition  imposed  by  the  rules  of  the  company  as 
to  free  insurance  of  shipments,  where  he  had  never  before  ex- 
ceeded his  actual  instructions  in  that  respect,  and  the  shipper  was 
aware  of  the  instructions  from  the  carrier  which  required  com- 
pliance with  such  condition,  although  the  agent  stated  to  him  that 
it  only  applied  to  large  shippers,  and  not  to  him ;  and  the  carrier 
is  not  bound  by  the  agent's  attempted  waiver.^^  Where  a  traveling 
freight  agent  of  a  common  carrier,  with  authority  to  solicit  freight 

29.  Magnus  v.  Piatt,  62  Misc.  Rep.  31.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wells 
(N.  Y.)   499,  115  N.  Y.  Supp.  824.             (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  58  S.  W.  842. 

Where,  by  its  business  methods  and  And  in  an  action  for  delay  and  neg- 
its  uniform  course  of  dealing,  an  ex-  ligence  in  executing  a  contract  for 
press  company  holds  out  persons  who  carriage  of  stock,  evidence  of  state- 
drive  wagons  marked  with  its  name,  ments  and  representations  made  by 
and  are  uniformed  with  caps  bearing  the  general  agent  of  the  system  to 
its  name,  as  authorized  to  receive  induce  such  shipment  is  inadmissible, 
goods  for  transportation,  and  delivery  Id. 

is  made  to  such  persons,  both  a  jury  32.    Fremont,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   New 

and  a  referee  may  draw  the  inference  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.    (Neb.),  92  N.  W. 

that  such  person  was  the  agent  of  the  131;    New  York,  etc.,   K.   Co.  v.   Fre- 

express  company.    Reel  v.  Adams  Ex-  mont,  etc.,  R.  Co.     Id. 

press  Co.,  27  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  77.  33.  Leinkauf  v.  Lombard,  A.  &  Co., 

30.  Crockett  v.  St.  Louis  &  H.  Ry.  12  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  302,  42  N.  Y. 
Co.,  147  Mo.  App.  347,  126  S.  W.  24.1.  Supp.  391. 


ggg  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

business,  and  with  special  authority  to  contract  for  shipments  of 
freight  on  special  conditions  as  to  movements  of  trains,  contracts 
for  the  shipment  of  freight,  without  disclosing  the  conditions 
limiting  his  authority,  the  principal  is  bound  by  his  act,  and  is 
liable  for  resulting  damages.^*  Where,  on  the  question  of  a 
soliciting  freight  agent's  authority  to  bind  the  company  by  a  time 
contract  as  to  freight,  it  was  shown  that,  with  authority,  he  had 
negotiated  a  settlement  arising  out  of  a  previous  contract  with 
the  same  shipper,  that  the  company  had  recognized  the  settlement, 
and  paid  the  amount  stipulated,  which  was  part  consideration  of 
the  new  contract,  and  for  a  month  carried  out  the  new  contract,  it 
was  held,  that  the  shipper  was  justified  in  regarding  him  as  general 
agent  for  that  branch  of  the  business.^^  A  carrier  is  bound  by  a 
bill  of  lading  issued  by  its  agent,  though  without  actual  receipt 
of  the  goods.^^  Where  connecting  railroads,  forming  a  through 
line,  enter  into  an  arrangement  by  which  they  employ  an  agent 
to  solicit  freight,  and  the  agent  issues  a  bill  of  lading  before  the 
initial  carrier  receives  the  goods,  and  with  knowledge  that  the  bill 
of  lading  is  to  accompany  a  draft  on  the  consignee,  and  the  con- 
signee pays  the  draft,  but  the  goods  are  never  received  either  by 
the  consignee  or  any  of  the  railroads,  the  consignee  can  recover 
the  amount  of  the  draft  from  the  terminal  carrier,  since,  apart 
from  the  question  of  partnership,  there  is  a  joint  liability  on  the 
part  of  all  the  companies  on  whose  behalf  the  bill  of  lading  was 
issued."     A  person  contracting  with  a  carrier,  through  its  agent, 

34.  Baker  &  Penniaton  t.  Chicago,  87  Ark.  26,  112  S.  W.  154,  holding 
etc     R.  Co.  (Minn.),  97  N.  W.  650.  that,  it  is  not  within  the  scope  of  the 

35.  Graves  v.  Miami  S.  S.  Co.,  29  authority  of  the  agents  of  a  carrier 
Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  645,  61  N.  Y.  to  issue  bills  of  lading  for  goods  not 
Supp.  115.  See  Brandenstein  v.  Doug-  actually  received  under  the  provisions 
lass,  105  Ga.  845;  Drohan  v.  Lumber  of  a  State  statute. 

Co  '  75  Minn.  251.  Whether  or  not  a  bill  of  lading  was 

36.  Missouri,  K  &  T.  Ry.  Co.  v.  signed  by  a  certain  person  as  agent 
Hutchings,  Sealy  &  Co.,  78  Kan.  758,  for  the  carrier  is  a  question  of  fact 
9«  Pac    230.  ^°^  *^®  jury.     Tishomingo  Sav.   Inst. 

But  see  St.  Louis,  I.  M.  &  S.  Ry.  v.  Johnson,  Nesbit  &  Co.,  146  Ala. 
Co.  V.  Citizens'  Bank  of  Little  Rock,      691,  40  So.  503. 

37.  Dulaney  &  Wharton  v.  Philadel- 


CARRIER'S  RELATION  TO  GOODS,   ETC.  537 

for  the  transportation  of  goods,  is  not  chargeable  with  notice  of 
limitation  of  the  agent's  right  to  contract,  when  he  is  a  general 
agent  of  the  company  in  charge  of  its  business  at  the  place  where 
the  contract  is  made  and  the  contract  is  the  kind  usually  made  by 
such  agents.  A  statement  in  the  blanks  and  literature  issued  by 
the  agent  of  a  steamship  company  that  insurance  on  consigned 
goods  was  free  when  the  value  was  declared  before  the  sailing  of 
the  steamer  does  not  charge  a  shipper  having  knowledge  thereof 
with  notice  that  the  agent  has  no  authority  to  insure  goods  without 
such  valuation.^^  But  the  unauthorized  issuance  by  the  agent  of  a 
steamship  company  of  bills  of  lading  to  a  purchaser  for  goods 
then^"m-a-^ublic  warehouse,  subject  to  the  orders  of  the  seller, 
who  is  bound  by  the  terms  of  the  sale  to  deliver  the  same  on  board, 
does  not  bind  the  company,  so  as  to  make  it  responsible  for  the 
goods  while  in  the  warehouse  and  before  their  actual  delivery  into 
its  custody;  and  even  an  acceptance  of  the  goods  on  board  ship  is 
a  ratification  of  the  contract  of  carriage  made  by  the  bills  of  lading 
only  from  the  time  of  such  delivery.^  The  general  rule  is  that 
where  an  entire  business  is  placed  under  the  management  of  an 
agent,  the  authority  of  the  agent  may  be  presumed  to  be  com- 
mensurate with  the  necessities  of  the  situation.  The  powers  of  the 
agent  are,  prima  facie,  co-extensive  with  the  business  entrusted  to 
his  care  and  will  not  be  narrowed  by  limitations  not  communicated 
to  the  person  with  whom  he  deals.  The  authority  of  an  agent  may 
be  implied  in  many  cases  from  his  official  designation,  the  position 
in  which  he  is  placed,  and  the  duties  which  naturally  appertain 
thereto.  Parties  may  deal  with  the  agents  of  corporations  upon 
the  presumption  that  they  possess  the  powers  usually  assigned  to 

phia  &  R.  Ry.   Co.,  228   Pa.   180,   77  act  and  make  the  bills  its  own  by  re- 

Atl.  507.  ceiving   on   board    one   of   its   vessels 

38.  Lo  wen  stein  v.  Lombard,  Ayres  goods  purporting:  to  be  those  de- 
ft Co.,  164  N.  Y.  324,  58  N.  E.  44,  scribed  in  the  bills,  where  by  reason 
revg.  45  N.  Y.  Supp.  286.  of   a   fraudulent   substitution    in   the 

39.  Cunard  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  115  warehouse,  of  which  it  was  ignorant. 
Fed.   678.  the  goods  actually  delivered  to  it  are 

The  company  does  not  ratify  such      not  the  same.    Id. 


538 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


the  office  they  hold,  and  the  principal  is  bound  as  to  third  persons 
acting  in  good  faith,  by  the  act  of  an  agent  within  his  apparent 
authority,  although  in  the  particular  instance  it  was  unauthorized. 
The  implied  authority  of  an  agent  in  the  absence  of  notice  to  the 
contrary  is  the  measure  of  his  apparent  authority.**'  The  testi- 
mony of  the  live  stock  agent  of  a  railroad  company  that  he  had 
authority  to  contract  for  cars  to  ship  cattle  was  sufficient  to  show 
him  a  general  agent  who  could  bind  the  carrier  by  a  contract  to 
furnish  cars.*^  If  a  carrier's  live  stock  agent  did  not  have  au- 
thority to  make  a  contract  with  a  shipper  to  ship  by  a  certain  train 
on  a  connecting  line,  the  carrier  ratified  the  contract  by  billing 
the  car  and  forwarding  it  to  its  junction  for  shipment  on  the  con- 
necting line.^ 

§  3.  Powers  and  authority  of  local  agents. 

Prima  facie  a  station  agent  or  baggage  master,  as  such,  can  bind 
his  company  only  by  contracts  of  carriage  to  the  end  of  its  road ; 
and  authority  to  bind  the  company  by  contracts  beyond  such  point 
must  be  shown  in  order  to  hold  the  company  liable.*^  A  local 
station  agent  or  freight  agent  has  no  power  to  make  a  special  agree- 

40.  Lowenstein  v.  Lombard,  Ayres  v.  Latham,  40  Tex.  Civ.  App.  78,  88 
&  Co.,  164  N.  Y.   324,  58  N.  E.  44;       S.  W.  392. 

Isaacson  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  42.  Kirby  v.   Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co., 

Co.,  94  N.  Y.  278,  46  Am,  Rep.  142;  242  111.  418,  90  N.  E.  252. 

Talcott  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  159  N.  Y.  43.    Marmonstein    v.    Pennsylv^ia 

461;  Trimble  v.  ISew  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)    32,  65 

R.  Co.,  162  N.  Y.  84.  St.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)   877,  34  N.  Y.  Supp. 

41.  Missouri,  K.  &  T.  Ry.  Co.  of  97,  revg.  32  N.  Y.  Supp.  1146;  Min- 
Texas  v.  Kyser  &  Sutherland,  38  Tex.  ter  v.  Southern  Kansas  R.  Co.,  56  Mo. 
Civ.  App.  355,  87  S.  W.  389.  App.   282;    Turner  v.   St.  Louis,   etc., 

Evidence  of  contracts  of  a  witness  R.  Co.,  20  Mo.  App.   632;   Patterson 

with   the  agent  of  the  railway   com-  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  Mo. 

panv,   by   which    cars    had   been    fur-  App.  570;    Crouch  v.  Louisville,  etc., 

nished  at  a  certain  place,  was  admis-  R.   Co.,   42   Mo.   App.   248;    White  v. 

sible  to  show  that  such   agent's  con-  Missouri    Pac.   R.    Co.,    19   Mo.    App. 

tract  with  plaintiff  to  furnish  cars  at  400 ;   Loomis  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

the  same  place  was  within  the  scope  17   Mo.   App.    340;    Hansen   v.   Flint, 

of  his  authority.     Pecos  River  R.  Co.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Wis.  346,  9  Am.   St. 

Rep.  791. 


CARRIER'S  RELATION  TO  GOODS,  ETC.  539 

ment  extending  the  liability  of  his  company  for  shipments  beyond 
its  own  line,  unless  it  has  been  expressly  conferred  upon  him  or 
may  be  implied  from  the  course  of  business,  or  the  company  has 
held  itself  out  as  a  common  carrier  to  such  points."  A  station 
agent  authorized  to  receive  and  forward  freight  may  bind  the 
company  by  a  contract  which  is  beyond  his  real  authority,  but 
within  the  scope  of  his  apparent  authority,  unless  the  other  party 
had  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  he  was  acting  beyond  his  actual 
authority.*^  A  local  station  agent  is  not  presumed  to  have  had  au- 
thority to  bind  his  company  to  a  contract  to  ship  property  over 
connecting  lines  from  the  mere  fact  that  he  collected  the  freight 
for  the  entire  distance.''^  A  station  agent's  authority  to  bind  a 
railroad  in  a  contract  of  carriage  to  a  point  on  the  line  of  a  con- 
necting carrier  mustbe  proved  in  order  to  hold  his  company  liable 
for  loss  or  damage  occurring  on  the  line  of  the  connecting  carrier. 
Such  authority  may  be  inferred  from  evidence  of  a  previous  course 
of  dealing  between  the  shipper  and  the  carrier.^"    A  railway  station 

44.  Hoffman  v.  Cumberland  Valley  between  plaintiffs  and  the  live  stock 
R.  Co.,  85  Md.  391.  37  Atl.  214;  agent,  and  the  evidence  was  sufficient 
Grover  &  B.  Mach.  Co.  v.  Missouri  to  create  in  him  as  great  an  authority 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  70  Mo.  672;  Burroughs  as  that  apparently  exercised  by  a  sta- 
V.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  Mass.  tion  agent  with  whom  the  public  must 
26;  Wolfe  V.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  contract  for  shipment,  and  the  plain- 
9  Kulp  (Pa.),  401,  and  such  author-  tiffs  had  no  knowledge  of  any  limita- 
ity  will  not  be  implied  from  previous  tions  on  his  power,  they  were  war- 
acts  and  conduct;  Ogdensburg,  etc.,  ranted  in  believing  that  he  had  au- 
R.  Co.  V.  Pratt,  22  Wall.  (U.  S.)  124;  thority  equal  to  that  which  could  be 
Blackburn  v.  Chicago,  R.  I.  &  G.  Ry.  exercised  by  the  station  agent.  Gulf, 
Co.,  52  Tex.  Civ.  App.  443,  115  S.  W.  C.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Jackson  &  Ed- 
874.  Wards,   99   Tex.    343,    89   S.   W.   968, 

45.  Gann  v.  Cliicago.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  revg.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  86  S.  W.  47. 
72  Mo.  App.  34;  Miller  v.  Chicago.  46.  Coates  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Mo.  App.  Rep.  474.  8  8.  D.   173,  65  N.  W.   1067;    Suttnn 

Where     there     was    evidence    that  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.    (S.   D.)     84 

plaintiffs  contracted  with  a  live  stock  N.  W.  396. 

agent   of   defendant   railway   for    the  47.    Faulkner    v.    Chicago,    etc.     R. 

shipment    of    cattle,    and    the    cattle  Co.   (Mo.  App.),  73  S.  W.  927. 
were  delivered  at  the  station,  and  the  A   station   agent   who    has    for    sic 

station    agent    knew    of   the   contract  months  been  issuing  bills  of  ladinsr  to 


540 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


agent,  authorized  to  receive  and  forward  freight  or  invested  with 
a  general  power  to  contract  for  transportation,  has  implied  author- 
ity to  contract  to  furnish  a  certain  number  of  cars  at  his  station 
on  a  specified  day,^^  or  to  have  cars  on  hand  at  a  certain  time  to 
carry  certain  goods,"*^  or  to  forward  freight  without  delay,^°  or  to 
ship  and  unload  live  stock,^^  the  shipper  having  no  knowledge  or 
notice  of  any  limitation  of  such  power.  Station  agents  are  pre- 
sumed to  have  power  to  make  contracts  for  their  railroads  for  the 


points   beyond   the   line    of    his    em- 
ployer's   road   has   ostensible    author- 
ity  to  make   a  contract  of  shipment 
for  such  a  point,  although  he  has  in- 
structions from  his   principal  not  to 
make  such  contracts,  where  the  ship- 
per did  not  know  or  could  not  have 
known,  by  the  exercise  of  proper  dili- 
gence,   of    the    existence    of    such    in- 
structions.    Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Cole, 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  28  S.  W.  391.     The 
conclusion  that  a  station  agent  at  a 
certain    city    the    business    establish- 
ments  of   which   extend   over   a   con- 
siderable territory,  not  all  within  the 
city  limits,  had  authority  to  contract 
for  the  carriage  of  freight  from  one 
of    such    establishments,    outside    the 
city  limits,  on  another  railroad,  and 
not     contiguous     to     his     company's 
tracks,  is  supported  by  evidence  that 
he   and  his   predecessors   had   always 
represented  the  company  in  its  deal- 
ings with  freighters  on  the  tracks  of 
other    roads,    and    with    reference    to 
certain    of    such    estalishments    out- 
side  the   city    limits,    and   by    corre- 
spondence   as    to    the    transaction    in 
question   between   him   and   the   com- 
pany's   general    freight   agent,    show- 
ing  the   understanding   of   both   that 
any  such  dealings  which  the  company 
mi"-ht   have   fell   within  his  province 


and  duty.  Bigelow  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  104  Wis.  109,  80  N.  W.  95. 
See  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dinwiddie,  21 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  339;  Rudell  v.  Ogdens- 
burg  Transit  Co.,  117  Mich.  568,  5 
Det.  L.  N.  497,  76  N.  W.  380,  44  L. 
R.  A.  415. 

48.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Irvine  & 
Woods  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  73  S.  W. 
540;  Harrison  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  74  Mo.  364.  41  Am.  Rep.  318: 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wright,  1  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  402;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Martin  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  28  S.  W. 
576. 

49.  Stoner  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
109  Iowa,  551,  80  N.  W.  569;  Wood  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Iowa,  491,  24 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  91,  56  Am.  Rep. 
861,  revg.  59  Iowa,  196,  21  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.   Cas.  38. 

50.  Harrell  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  106  N.  C.  258,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  421;  Deming  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
Co.,  48  N.  H.  455,  2  Am.  Rep.  267,  so 
held,  although  such  agent  testified 
that  he  only  had  charge  of  the  re- 
ceiving and  forwarding  and  had  no 
authority  to  make  contracts  of  af- 
freightment and  no  control  of  the 
locomotive  power  of  the  road. 

51.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rosen- 
berg, 31  111.  App.  47. 


CARRIER'S  RELATION  TO  GOODS,  ETC. 


541 


transportation  of  freight.  The  limitations  on  their  powers  the 
public  cannot  take  notice  of,  unless  thej  are  conveyed  to  the  pub- 
lic in  such  a  manner  as  to  authorize  the  inference  that  shippers 
are  apprised  of  them.^^  But  a  station  agent  at  one  point  on  a 
railroad  has  no  implied  authority  to  make  a  contract  for  furnish- 
ing cars  at  another  station.^  Where  the  contract  for  furnishing 
cars  for  shipment  of  stock,  or  for  other  purposes,  is  one  within 
the  apparent  scope  of  the  agent's  authority,  its  validity  will  not  be 
affected  by  the  fact  that  the  agent  had  special  instructions  limit- 
ing his  authority  in  such  matters,  no  knowledge  of  such  instruc- 
tions by  the  shipper  being  shown.^  A  shipper  contracting  with  a 
railroad  station  agent  for  the  transportation  of  freight  is  under  no 
legal  obligation  to  make  inquiries  concerning  the  station  agent's 
instructions  or  po\?Brsv^^    Where  the  agent  of  an  express  company 


52.  Pruitt  V.  Hannibal,  etc.  R. 
Co.,  62  Mo.  527;  Newport  News,  etc. 
R.  Co.  V.  Mercer,  96  Ky.  475;  Chica 
go,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wolcott,  141  Ind, 
267;  Gelvin  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R 
Co.,  21  Mo.  App.  273.  Compare  Mis 
souri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Carpenter,  44 
Kan.    257. 

53.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hodge,  10 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  543,  30  S.  W.  839; 
Easton  v.  Dudley,  78  Tex.  236,  45  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  340;  Voorhees  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Iowa,  735,  60 
Am.  Rep.  823,  29  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
822;  Missouri  Pac.  R,  Co.  v.  Stults, 
31  Kan.  752,  15  Am.  &  Eng.  3.  Cas. 
97.  But  see  Miller  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  1  Mo.  App.  Rep.  474,  holding 
that  a  station  agent  may  bind  hia 
company  by  a  contract  to  furnish  cars 
at  another  station  at  a  specified  time 
to  a  shipper  of  sitock;  Grimes  v.  Lake 
Erie  &  W.  Ry.  Co.,  142  111.  App.  532, 
holding  that  a  station  agent  has  ap- 
parent,   if   not   implied   authority   to 


bind  the  carrier  to  furnish  a  car  at 
a  specified  time  and  place. 

54.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v 
True,  (Tex.  Oiv.  App.)  57  S.  W.  977; 
Cross  V.  Graves,  4  Tex.  App.  Civ. 
Cos.,  §  100;  New  York  L.  Ins.  Co. 
V.  Rohrbough,  2  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas., 
§  217;  Watkins  v.  Morley,  2  Tex. 
App.  Oiv.  Cas.,  §  727;  Lillard  v. 
Mitchell,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Cas.,  § 
457;  Page  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13 
W.  R.  566. 

When  a  railix>ad  company  issued 
explicit  orders  to  a  local  agent  of  its 
road  as  to  the  rates  \f>  be  charged 
on  difTerent  classes  of  freight,  it  will 
not  be  liable  for  delay  in  transporta- 
tion of  freight  under  a  contract  with 
the  agent  as  shipper  in  violation  of 
such  instructions.  Central  of  Georgia 
R.  Co.  V.  Felton,  110  Ga.  597,  36  S. 
E.   93. 

55.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Williams,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  57  S.  W. 
883.    Since  an  oral  contract  by  a  rail- 


542 


THE  LAW  OF  CAERIERS. 


has  followed  certain  metliods  of  doing  business  for  a  long  period 
of  years,  the  express  company  will  be  presumed  to  know  and  ap- 
prove of  the  methods,  and  is  liable  for  the  acts  of  the  agent.^^  A 
carrier's  local  agent,  on  receiving  a  shipment,  could  bind  the  car- 
rier by  an  agreement  not  to  deliver  without  surrender  of  the  bill 
of  lading  which  the  shipper  attached  to  a  draft  upon  the  con- 
signee.^^ But  a  station  agent  cannot  bind  his  company  by  a  con- 
tract to  forward  freight  by  a  passenger  train,^  or  beyond  what 
may  be  fairly  presumed,  from  the  character  of  his  employment,  to 
be  his  authority, ^^  as,  for  example,  permitting  goods  to  remain  in 
its  warehouse,  after  they  have  been  delivered  to  the  owner  and  his 
receipt  taken  therefor;^'*  nor  even  to  the  latter  extent,  if  the  con- 
signor has  notice  of  his  special  and  limited  authority.^^  Admis- 
sions made  by  the  carrier's  agent  after  a  loss  has  occurred  do  not 
bind  the  company  and  are  not  admissible  to  prove  negligence  on 
the  part  of  the  carrier.^^  An  agent  cannot  bind  his  company  when 
acting  in  fraud  of  the  company's  rights  or  in  plain  contravention 
of  his  duty,  as  where  he  acknowledges  the  receipt  of  goods  which 
were  never  received;^  nor  when  acting  in  defiance  to  the  knowTi 

road    station    agent    for    the    trans-  18  C.  B.  N.  S.  748,  114  E.  C.  L.  748, 

portation   of   stock   is  binding  unless  34  L,  J.  C.  P.  195 ;  Home  v.  Midland 

the   shipper  has   knowledge   that   the  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  8   C.  P.  131,  42  L.  J. 

agent  has  no  authority  to  make  such  C.  P.  59. 

contract,  it  was  not  error,  in  an  ac-  60.  Mulligan   v.   Northern   Pac.   R. 

tion  against  a  railroad  on  such  a  con-  Co.,   4  Dak.   315,   27  Am.  &  Eng.   R. 

tract,    to    refuse    to    charge    on    de-  Cas.    33. 

fendant's  plea  setting  up  the  agent's  61.  Walker   v.   York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

want  of   authority   to   enter   into  an  2  El.  &  Bl.  750,  75  E.  C.  L.  750,  23 

oral  contract.  Id.  ^-   J-  Q-  B.  73. 

56.  Springer  v.  Westcott,  166  N.  Y.  62.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ordway, 
117    59  N.  E.  693.  140  Mass.  510,  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

57.  Sturges  v.  Detroit,  G.  H.  &  M.  413,  note;  Branch  v.  Wilmington, 
Ry.  Co.,  166  Mich.  231.  131  N.  W.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  N.  C.  573,  18  Am.  & 
706;   18  Detroit  Leg.  N.  377.  Eng.  R.   Cas.  621. 

58.  Elkins  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63.  Coleman  v.  Riches,  16  C.  B, 
23  N.  H.  275.  104,  81  E.  C.  L.  104,  24  L.  J.  C.  P. 

59.  Great  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Willis,  125. 


CARRIER'S   RELATION   TO   GOODS,   ETC,  543. 

course  of  business  of  the  company.^  A  contract  by  a  carrier  to 
deliver  goods  at  destination  at  a  certain  time,  which  allows  the 
usual  period  for  making  the  trip,  is  within  the  general  authority 
of  the  carrier's  agent.^"  An  agent  of  a  railroad  company  may, 
where  it  has  become  impossible  to  perform  a  contract  for  the 
shipment  of  stock,  because  of  a  strike  on  the  railroad,  enter  into 
a  new  agreement  with  the  shipper  to  pay  the  expenses  incurred  by 
the  latter  in  taking  care  of  and  feeding  the  stock  until  they  can  be 
shipped,  where  the  original  contract  does  not  require  the  shipper 
to  perform  any  services  in  connection  with  the  transportation  of 
the  stock.^^  Special  authority  from  the  carrier  must  be  shown  in 
order  to  make  any  act  of  the  carrier's  agent  binding  on  the  carrier, 
when  such  act  is  beyond  the  ordinary  and  usual  powers  of  the 
agent.®^  The  acts  of  a  station  agent  as  the  representative  of  a 
shipper  by  whom  he  is  employed  to  purchase  goods  for  him  and 
hold  and  ship  them  under  his  directions,  do  not  bind  the  carrier 
though  he  is  also  the  carrier's  local  agent,  since  he  cannot  assume 
to  act  in  a  dual  capacity  where  the  interests  of  the  parties  are  con- 
flicting.^^ Where  the  defendant,  through  its  station  agent,  con- 
tracted to  carry  plaintiff's  goods  to  a  point  in  Canada,  plaintiff 
had  a  right  to  rely  on  the  agreement  by  the  agent  that  the  company 
would  advance  the  customs  duties,  unless  he  had  notice  that  the 
agent  had  no  such  authority. ^^  Where  a  local  agent  has  trans- 
cended his  authority  in  making  a  contract,  yet  if  the  carrier  has 

64.  Slim  V.  Great  Nortliem  R.  Co.,  68.  Sumner  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R. 
14  C.  B.  647,  78  E.  C.  L.  647,  23  L.       Co.,  78  N.  C.  289. 

J.  C.  P.  166;   Belfast,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  69.  Waldron   v.    Canadian   Pac.   R. 

Keys,  9;  H.  L,  Cas.  556.  Co.,  23  Wash.  253,  60  Pac.  653.     Cit- 

65.  Rudell  v.  Ogdensburg  Transit  ing  Wood  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68 
Co.,  117  Mich.  568,  5  Det.  L.  N.  497,  Iowa,  491,  27  N.  W.  473;  Deming  v. 
76  N.  W.  380,  44  L.  R.  A.  415.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  48  N.  H.  455; 

66.  Carstens  v.  Burleigh,  20  Wash.  Pruitt  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62 
283,   55  Pac.  221.  Mo.   627;    Harrison  v.  Missouri   Pac. 

67.  Giles  v.  Taff  Vale  R.  Co.,  2  El.  R.  Co.,  74  Mo.  364;  Guesnard  v.  Rail- 
&  Bl.  822,   75  E.  C.  L.   822,  18  Jur.  road  Co.,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  Oas.  691. 
£10.  23  L.  J.  Q.  B.  43. 


544  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

availed  itself  of  the  benefits  of  the  contract  made  by  the  agent, 
it  cannot  afterwards  repudiate  the  agreement  on  the  ground  that 
the  agent  has  exceeded  his  authority.^''  But  where  a  shipper  ship- 
ped some  goods  over  a  carrier's  line,  and  persuaded  the  carrier's 
local  agent  to  write  on  the  bill  of  lading  that  the  car  was  to  be 
switched  to  a  certain  street  at  destination,  the  agent  stating  that 
the  carrier  had  no  switching  facilities  at  that  street  and  protesting 
against  so  billing  the  shipment,  the  agent  had  no  authority  to  agree 
to  bill  the  goods  to  that  point,  and  the  shipper  could  not,  under  the 
circumstances,  recover  for  the  carrier's  failure  to  deliver  the  goods 
as  required  by  the  bill  of  lading.^^  A  railroad  company  is  not 
bound  by  the  assent  of  its  station  agent  to  a  shipper's  written  in- 
struction as  to  the  selection  of  a  connecting  carrier,  when  the 
agent  told  the  shipper  that  the  "  office  at  H.  (the  terminal)  gen- 
erally took  their  own  route,  and  would  not  pay  any  attention  to 
him,"  the  assent  thereto  being  insufiicientJ^  Though  the  agent  of 
a  carrier  at  a  certain  station  resigned,  and  his  resignation  was 
accepted,  yet,  no  one  else  having  been  appointed  for  a  year,  and 
the  company  having  in  the  interim  left  the  station  keys  with  him, 
and  he  having  personally  seen  to  billing  freight,  though  he  did  not 
sign  the  bills  of  lading,  and  no  notice  of  his  discharge  having  been 
given  the  public,  but  he  having  been  permitted  to  act  substantially 
as  he  had  done  before,  the  carrier  was  estopped  by  its  acquiescence 
to  question  his  authority  as  agent  as  between  it  and  shippers  who 
dealt  with  him.'^^ 

70.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  rier's  line  to  a  certain  place,  and  de- 
76  111.  67;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  livered  to  another  carrier  for  tran»- 
Smith,    (Ala.)    31  So.  481.  portation  to  their  destination,  the  re- 

71.  iriinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Swanson,  ceiving  carrier  is  not  bound  by  the 
92  Miss.  485,  46  So.  83.  statements   of   a   station   agent  as  to 

72.  Wm.  H.  Bessling  &  Co.  v.  Hous-  the  rate  that  would  be  charged  by 
ton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Tex.  Civ.  App.  the  connecting  carrier.  M'cLagan  v. 
470.   80  S.  W.  639.  Chicago.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,    (Iowa)    89  N. 

Where  the  contract  between  a  car-  W.  233. 

rier  and   a   shipper,   as  evidenced   by  73.  Louisville  &  N.  R.  Oo.  v.  Mink, 

the  bill  of  lading,  is  that  the  goods  31  Ky.  Law  Rep.  833,  103  S.  W.  294. 
shall    be    transported    over    the    car- 


CARRIER'S  RELATION  TO  GOODS,  ETC.  545 

§  4.  Authority  of  other  agents  or  employes. 

Where  shippers  of  freight  filled  out  in  their  own  blank  freight 
receipt  books,  printed  by  an  express  company,  a  receipt,  describing 
the  freight,  the  consignee,  and  his  address,  and  tendered  it  to  an 
employe  of  the  express  company,  for  signature,  at  the  shipper's 
store,  and  the  employe  signed  and  returned  it,  it  constituted  a 
special  contract,  whose  conditions  were  binding  on  the  principals.''* 
Defendant  having  made  an  express  contract  with  plaintiff  to  get 
his  trunk  in  C.  and  deliver  it  to  him  in  L.,  and  the  trunk  having 
been  delivered  afterwards  for  plaintiff  to  a  person  who  was  acting 
as  an  agent  employed  by  defendant  to  get  it,  defendant  is  liable 
for  the  loss.^^  One  held  out  by  a  railroad  company  as  its  freight 
claim  agent  has  authority  to  waive  a  requirement  in  a  live  stock 
contract  that  a  claim  for  loss  shall  be  verified  by  the  affidavit  of 
the  shipper.^^  The  agent  of  a  terminal  route  who  receives,  hauls, 
and  delivers  consignment  of  goods,  is  in  respect  thereto  an  agent 
of  the  connecting  line."  A  carrier  is  bound  by  the  promise  of  a 
freight  train  conductor  to  furnish  cars  for  a  shipment,  wnere  he 
has  been  intrusted  generally  with  such  power  and  accustomed  to 
exercise  it.^^  A  railroad  company  is  not  bound  by  a  promise  made 
by  the  clerk  of  its  auditor  to  pay  the  consignor  for  goods  delayed 
in  transportation,  and  subsequently  refused  by  the  consignee,  in 
the  absence  of  any  evidence  of  his  authority.''^  In  the  absence  of 
the  local  agent  at  the  station  to  which  goods  represented  by  a  bill 
of  lading  are  consigned,  a  demand  upon  any  agent  of  the  company 
in  general  control  is  sufficient  to  justify  suit  against  the  company 
for  the  goods.^"    Where  a  carrier  had  thirty-five  or  forty  employes 

74.  Bernstein    v.     Weir,     40    Misc.  Condensed  Milk  Co.,  175  111.  557,  51 
Pep.   (N.  Y.)   635,  83  N.  Y.  Supp.  48.  K   E.   911. 

75.  Hamil  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Exp.  78.  Georgia   Coast  &   P.   R.   Co.  v. 
Co.,  177  Mass.  474,  59  N.  E.  75.  Dnrrence  &   Sands,   6   Ga.  App.   615, 

76.  Cleveland,      etc.,      R.      Co.      v.  65  S.  E.  583. 

Heath,  22  Ind.  App.  47,  1  Repr.  752,  79.  Gulf,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Jacobs,   3 

S3  N.  E.   198.  Tex.   Civ.   App.  485,  23   S.  W.   145. 

77.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R,  Co.  v.  Elgin         80.    Walters    v.    Western,    etc.,    R. 


Co.,  66  Fed.  862,  affg.  63  Fed.  391. 


3.f) 


546  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

in  a  freight  office,  only  three  of  whom  were  authorized  to  make 
shipping  contracts,  notice  of  special  damages  likely  to  result  from 
delay  in  a  shipment  given  to  the  person  who  caused  the  bill  of 
lading  to  be  executed,  and  who  was  put  forward  to  transact  the 
business  for  the  carrier,  was  notice  to  it.^^  The  shipping  report 
signed  by  the  plaintiff  and  the  agent  of  the  connecting  line  at  the 
connecting  point  could  not  change  or  affect  the  written  contracts 
between  plaintiff  and  defendant.*^  Where  a  charter  party  pro- 
vides a  liability  for  demurrage  for  delay  in  unloading  at  a  foreign 
port,  which  is  within  easy  cable  communication  with  the  owner, 
the  master  cannot  settle  the  claim  for  such  demurrage  for  less 
than  the  sum  due.^^  Where  a  carrier,  having  shipped  cotton  under 
order  bills,  delivered  the  same  to  a  compress  company  at  destina- 
tion as  a  warehouseman,  the  compress  company  became  the  agent 
of  the  carrier  to  take  up  the  carrier's  bills  of  lading,  and  issue 
warehouse  receipts  therefor.^* 

§  5.  Carrier  and  insurance  company. 

The  carrier  may  insure  goods  intrusted  to  it,  not  only  for  the 
amount  of  its  special  property  in  them,  but  for  the  full  amount 
of  their  value,  but  in  such  case  the  amount  of  the  insurance,  over 
and  above  the  amount  due  it  by  the  owner  for  freight,  advances, 
and  any  sums  paid  to  the  owner  for  the  loss  of  or  damage  to  the 
goods,  inures  to  the  benefit  of  the  owner.^^    And  the  carrier  may 

81.  Chicago,  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Co.,  4  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  1,  36  N.  Y.  655; 
Planters'  Gin  &,  Oil  Co.,  88  Ark.  77,  Stillwell  v.  Staples,  19  N.  Y.  401; 
113  S.  W.  352.  Chase  v.   Washington   Mut.   Ins.   Co., 

82.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  13  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  595;  Van  Naitta 
Barneitt,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  66  S.  W.  v.  Mutual  Security  Ins.  Co.,  3 
474.  Sandf.    (N.  Y.)    490;   Eastern  R.  Co. 

83.  Randall  v.  Brodhead,  60  App.  v.  Relief  F.  Ins.  Co.,  98  Mass.  430; 
Div.   (N.  Y.)   567,  70  N.  Y.  Supp,  43  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Transp. 

84.  St.  Louis,  I.  M.  &  S.  Ry.  Co.  Co.,  10  Biss.  (U.  S.)  18;  Penni- 
V.  Citizens'  Bank  of  Little  Rock,  87  feather  v.  Baltimore  Steam  Packet 
Ark.  26.  112  S.  W.  154.  Co.,   58   Fed.   481;    Minneapolis,   etc., 

85.  Waring  v.  Indemnity  Fire  R.  Co.  v.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  55  Minn. 
Ins.   Co.,  45  N.  Y.   606,   6  Am.  Rep.  236. 

146;    Savage  v.   Corn   Exch.   F.,  etc.. 


CAKKIER'S  RELATION   TO   GOODS,  ETC.  547 

stipulate  with  the  owner  that  it  shall  be  entitled  to  the  benefit  of 
any  insurance  which  the  shipper  may  have  effected  on  the  goods, 
and  in  such  case  may  maintain  the  same  action  on  the  policy  as 
the  shipper  himself  might  maintain.*^  But  the  carrier  cannot 
insist  upon  the  owner  or  shipper  insuring  the  goods  for  its  benefit 
as  a  condition  precedent  to  its  receiving  the  goods  for  transporta- 
tion." An  underwriter  is  entitled  to  recover  from  the  carrier 
money  advanced  under  a  policy  of  marine  insurance  where  it  ap- 
peared that  there  had  been  a  loss  due  to  negligence  and  the  amount 
thereof  was  advanced  by  the  underwriter  as  a  loan.^^ 

86.  Fayenveather    v.    Phoenix    Ins.  Steam  Go.  v.  Phoenix  Ins.   Co.,   129 

Co.,  118  N.  Y.  324,   and  the  assured  U.  S.  397;  Liverpool,  etc..  Steam  Co. 

cannot  recover  where  he  ha*  accepted  v.  Ins.  Oo.  of  N.  A.,  129  U.  S.  464. 

a   bill    of   lading   containing    suoii    a  87.  Inman    v.    South    Carolina    R. 

stipulation;     Rintoul    v.    New    York  Co.,  129  U.  S.  128;   Insurance  Co.  of 

Cent.,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    17   Fed.   905,   21  N.   A.   v.   Fasten,   73   Tex.   167.     See 

Blatchf.    (U.  S.)    439;   Hart  v.  West-  also  Willock  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 

ern  R.   Corp.,   13  Mete.    (Mass.)    99;  166   Pa.   St.   184. 

British,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  88.  Bradley  v.  Lehigh  Val.  R.  Co., 

Co.,   63  Tex.   475;    Missouri   Pac.   R.  (U.  S.  S.  D.  N.  Y.)  N.  Y.  Law  Jour- 

Co.  V.  International  Marine  Ins.  Co.,  nal,  March  10,  1906. 
84  Tex.  149.    See  also  Liverpool,  etc.. 


CHAPTER    XII. 

Negligence  of  Cakkiee. 

Sbotion     1.  General  rule  of  liability  as  to  negligence  of  carrier. 

2.  Negligence  must  have  been  proximate  cause  of  injury. 

3.  Negligence  in  stowage  of  goodp. 

§  1.  General  rule  of  liability  as  to  negligence  of  carrier. 

By  negligence  is  meant  a  failure  to  use  such  care  and  precaution 
as  a  person  of  ordinary  care  and  prudence  would  use  under  like 
circumstances.^  In  order  to  maintain  an  action  for  injury  to  per- 
son or  property  arising  from  negligence,  there  must  be  shown  to 
exist  some  obligation  or  duty  toward  the  plaintiff  which  the  defend- 
ant has  left  undischarged.^  Every  defendant  is  to  be  held  liable 
for  all  those  consequences  which  might  have  been  seen  and  expected 
as  the  result  of  his  conduct,  but  not  for  those  which  he  could  not 
have  forseen,  and  was  therefore  under  no  moral  obligation  to  take 


1.  Mangam  v.  Brooklyn  R.  Co.,  33 
N.  Y.  455 ;  Patton  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
82  Fed.  979,  42  U.  S.  App.  567,  27  C. 
€.  A.  287;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wood,  (Tex.  Oiv.  App.)  81  S.  W. 
1187;  Hanlon  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R. 
lOo.,  (Wis.)  95  N.  W.  100;  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Oo.  V.  Logsdon,  24  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  1566,  71  S.  W.  905;  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Oo.  V.  Brown,  (Tex.  Oiv. 
App.)  69  S.  W.  1010;  Anderson  v. 
Union  Terminal  R.  'Co.,  161  Mo.  411, 
61  S.  W.  874;  Western,  etc.,  R.  Oo. 
V.  Vaughan,  113  Ga.  354,  38  S.  E. 
851;  Bradley  v.  Ohio  Riv«r,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  126  N.  C.  735,  36  S.  E.  181. 

Ordinary  care  is  the  care  and  pru- 
dence of  an  ordinary  prudent  man. 
Ford  V.  Kansas  City,   181  Mo.   137, 


79  S.  W.  923.  Such  care  as  an  ordi- 
nary prudent  person  exercises  on  any 
and  all  oooasions,  and  not  such  as 
such  a  person  usually  exercises.  Chi- 
cago City  R.  Co.  V.  Schuler,  111  111. 
App.  470. 

2.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v.  Cline, 
111  111.  App.  416;  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Oo.  V.  Cox,  66  Ohio  St.  276,  64  N. 
E.  119;  Hunter  v.  Kansas  City,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  85  Fed.  379,  54  U.  S.  iipp. 
653,  29  0.  0.  A.  206;  Rosen  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Fed.  300,  49  U. 
S.  App.  647,  27  C.  O.  A.  534;  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Oo.  V.  Nugent,  86  Md. 
349,  38  Atl.  779,  39  L.  R.  A.  161; 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ballentine, 
84  Fed.  935,  56  U.  S.  App.  266,  28 
0.    0.    A.    572. 


(548) 


NEGLIGENCE  OF  CARRIER. 


549 


into  consideration.^  All  distinctions  in  the  degrees  of  negligence 
are  now  generally  disregarded  by  the  courts,  it  being  held  that  the 
terms  slight,  ordinary  and  gross  negligence  can  no  longer  be  use- 
fully applied  in  practice.^  Wanton  or  wilful  negligence  is  such  a 
gross  want  of  care  and  regard  for  the  rights  of  others  as  to  imply 
a  total  disregard  of  consequences  or  a  willingness  or  intention  to 
inflict  injury;  and  whether  a  particular  act  is  wanton  or  wilful 
negligence  is  largely  dependent  on  the  particular  circumstances 
of  each  case.^  There  is  no  fixed  and  invariable  rule  for  determin- 
ing the  duty  of  the  carrier  in  respect  to  the  care  required  of  it  in 
the  transportation  of  property  other  than  that  it  is  required  to  use 
reasonable  care  and  diligence  for  the  proper  and  safe  carriage  and 
delivery  of  the  property,  and  what  is  reasonable,  as  to  care,  speed. 


3.  Loftus  V.  Union  Ferry  Co.,  84 
N.  Y.  455,  38  Am.  Rep.  533;  Hubbell 
V.  Yonkers,  104  N.  Y.  434,  58  Am. 
Rep.  523;  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Lindsay,  109  111.  App.  533;  Gosa  v. 
Southern  Ry.,  67  S  C.  347,  45  S.  E. 
810;  Indianapolis  St.  Ry.  Go.  v.  Dar- 
nell, 1  St.  Ry.  Rep.  237,  32  Ind.  App. 
687,  68  N.  E.  609,  it  will  not  be  in- 
ferred when  the  result  of  wrongful 
conduct  may  reasonably  be  attributed 
to  negligence  or  inattention;  Kirby  v. 
Delaware,  etc..  Canal  Co.,  20  App. 
Div.  (N.Y.)  473,  46  N.  Y.  Supp.  777; 
New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  C5o.  v.  McEwen 
&  Murray,  49  La.  Ann.  1184,  38  L. 
R.  A.  134,  7  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  N, 
S.  742,  22  So.  675;  Mars  v.  Dela- 
ware, etc..  Canal  Co.,  54  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
625;  Dicken  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Co., 
41  W.  Va.  511;  Charlebois  v.  Gogebie, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Mich.  59. 

4.  Magrane  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  183  Mo.  119,  81  S.  W.  1158;  Per- 
kins V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24  N. 
Y.  196;  Briggs  v.  Taylor,  28  Vt.  180; 
Stringer  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99 


Ala.  497,  13  So.  75;  People  v.  Union 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  114  Fed.  123,  51  C.  C. 
A.  564,  57  L.  R.  A.  700;  Denver,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Peterson,  (Colo.)  69  Pac. 
578;   Steamboat  New  World  v.  King, 

16  How,  (U.  S.)  474;  Milwalkee, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Arms,  91  U.  S.  495; 
New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Lockwood, 

17  Wall.  (U.  S.)  357;  Hinton  v.  Dib- 
ble, 2  Ad.  &  El.  N.  S.  661,  42  E.  C. 
L.  661;  Nellis  St.  Rd.  Acct.  Law,  22, 
23.  But  see  Belt  Ry.  Co.  v.  Banicki, 
102  111.  App.  642;  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.  V.  Stewart,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  637, 
63  S.  W.  596;  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Board,  25  Ky.  L.  R.  1118,  77 
S.  W.  189;  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Dodge,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1959,  66  S.  W. 
606. 

5.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cline, 
111  111.  App.  416;  Chicago,  etc.. 
Transfer  R.  Co.  v.  Gruss,  102  111. 
App.  439,  200  111.  195,  65  N.  E.  693; 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moorer,  116 
Ala.  642,  22  So.  900,  9  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Oas.  N.  S.  742. 


550  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

priority  of  transportation,  etc.,  is  necessarily  dependent  upon  the 
circumstances  and  conditions  attending  each  particular  case,  such 
as  the  nature  and  condition  of  the  goods,  the  conditions  of  traffic, 
the  state  of  the  weather,  etc.^  It  is  bound  to  protect  the  goods  it 
carries  from  unreasonable  hazards,  from  extrinsic  dangers;^  to 
handle  with  special  care  fragile  goods  whose  character  is  indi- 
cated on  the  package  f  to  exercise  due  care  that  goods  are  not  im- 
properly exposed  to  the  elements  f  to  use  reasonable  care  for  the 
preservation  of  perishable  goods ;  ^^  to  exercise  reasonable  diligence 
to  ascertain  early  means  of  forwarding  goods  to  their  destina- 
tion ;^'^^  and  it  is  not  relieved  from  its  duty  or  responsibility  by  the 
fact  that  the  purpose  of  the  shipper  is  an  unlawful  one,^^  or  that 
the  shipment  is  made  in  violation  of  a  statute  prohibiting  the 
shipment  or  unloading  of  goods  on  Sunday.^^  Except  where  the 
facts  are  not  disputed  and  but  one  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from 
them,  it  is  always  a  question  of  fact  for  a  jury  to  determine 
whether  or  not  the  loss  or  damage  is  the  result  of  the  carrier's 
negiigence.^^     The  primary  duty  of  a  common  carrier  is  to  ob- 

6.  Wibert  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  10.  Wing  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Oo.,   12   N.   Y.   245;    Tierney  v.  New      Co.,   1  Hilt.    (N.  Y.)    235. 

York  Cent,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y.  305 ;  10a.  McKay    v.    New    York    Cent., 

Swetiland  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Hun    (N.  Y.)    563,  3 

Mass.   276;   Peet  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  N.  Y.  Supp.  708. 

CO.    20  Wis.  594;   American  Express  11.  Waters    v.    Richmond,    etc.,    R. 

Co.'v.  Smith,  33  Ohio  St.  511,  31  Am.  Co.,    110  N.   C.   338. 

Rep.  361 ;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Cb.  v.  Mc-  12.  Merritt  v.  Earle,  29  N.  Y.  115, 

Clellan,    54   lU.   58,   5   Am.  Rep.   83;  S6    Am.    Dec.    292;    Shelton    v.    Mer- 

Clinnin"ham    v.    Great    Northern    R.  chants   Despatch   Transp.   Co.,   59   N. 

Co.,   49*^1^.   T.  N.   S.   394,    16   Am.   &  Y     258,    48    How.    Pr.    (N.   Y.)    257; 

En<»'.  R.  Cas.  254.  Wilde  v.  Merchants  Despatch  Transp. 

7.  Tanner  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Iowa,  272. 

R.  Co.,  108  N.  Y.  623,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  13.  Tanner     v.     New     \ork     Cent., 

r'.  Cas.  380.  Pt<^-'  '^-  Co.,  108  N.  Y.  623,  32  Am.  & 

8.  Hastings  V.  Pepper,  11  Pick.  Eng.  R.  Cas.  380,  1  Silv.  (N.  Y.) 
(Mass.)   41.  ^^^'    Suck    v.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co., 

9.  Williams  v.  Morgan,  32  La.  Ami.  150  Pa.  St.  170,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  800, 
168;  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Exposi-  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  207;  Udell  v. 
tion  Cotton  Mills,  81  Ga.  522,  35  Am.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  13  Mo.  /ipp. 
&  En?.  R.  Cas.  602.  254;    Witting   v.    St.   Louis,    etc.,    R. 


NEGLIGENCE  OF  CARRIER.  5  51 

serve  the  instructions  of  the  shipper  and  it  is  liable  for  any  loss 
occasioned  bj  its  disobeying  the  shipper's  express  directions." 
And  it  cannot  be  charged  with  negligence  where  it  transports  and 
handles  goods  in  the  manner  directed  and  according  to  instruc- 
tions by  the  shipper.^^  It  is  not  liable  where  it  carries  the  goods 
in  the  only  method  practicable  under  the  circumstances  and  condi- 
tions.^® That  goods  were  carefully  and  securely  packed  when  de- 
livered to  the  carrier,  and  were  in  a  badly  damaged  condition 
when  received  at  their  destination,  raises  the  inference  that  they 
were  not  transported  with  ordinary  care."  On  the  other  hand, 
evidence  is  admissible  which  shows  that  such  injuries  were  usual 
to  such  artietes^so  shipped,  in  order  to  prove  that  the  injuries  were 
not  caused  by  the  negligence  of  the  carrier.^*  Whether  the  ship- 
ment of  goods  in  open  cars  or  boats  is  negligent  or  not  is  to  be  de- 
termined from  all  the  other  circumstances  of  the  case  ;^^  and  the 
custom  of  well  managed  railroads  or  vessels  is  admissible  to  show 
that  such  method  of  transportation  is  not  necessarily  negligent.^" 

Co.,   101   Mo.   631,   20   Am.   St.   Rep.  16.  Burwell    v.    Raleigh,    etc.,    R. 

633,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  369;  Per-  Co.,  94  N.  C.  451,  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

ishable      Freight      Transp.      Co.      v.  Cas.  410. 

O'Neill,    41    111.    App.    423;    Geo.    C.  17.  Phoenix    Clay    Pot    Works    v. 

Vagley  Elevator  Co.  v.  American  Ex-  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   139   Pa.  St. 

press   Co.,   63   Minn.   142;    Congar  v.  284,  27  W.  N.  C.  321,  20  Atl.  105S. 

Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Wis.  477.  18.  Steele    v.    Townsend,     37    Ala. 

14.  .Tohnson  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  247,   79  Am.  Dec.  49. 

Co.,  33  N.  Y.  610,  88  Am.  Dec.  416;  19.  Insurance   Co.   of  N.   A.  v.   St. 

Pavitt  V.  Lehigh  Valley  R.   Co.,   153  Louis,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    11    Fed.    380,    3 

Pa.    St.    302;    Sager   v.    Portsmouth,  McCrary    (U.  S.)   233;   Western,  etc., 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Me.  228,  50  Am.  Dec,  R.  Co.  v.  Exposition  Cotton  Mills,  81 

659;  Mellier  v.  St.  Ix)uis,  etc.,  Transp.  Ga.  522;  Chevalier  v.  Patton,  10  Tex. 

Co.,  14  Mo.  App.  281.  344. 

15.  Ross  V,  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  20.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Man- 
Vt.  364,  24  Am.  Rep.  144;  Miltimore  Chester  Mills,  88  Tenn.  653;  Kelton  v. 
v.  Claicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Wis.  190;  Taylor,  11  Lea  (Tenn.)  264,  47  Am. 
Sloan  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Rep.  284;  Rich  v.  Lambert,  12  Fov. 
Mo.  220;  Central  R.  etc.,  Co.  v.  An-  (U.  S.)  352;  Clark  t.  Barnwell,  12 
derson,  58  Ga.  393,  16  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  How.   (U.  S.)   279. 

8.-. 


552 


THE  LAW  OF  CARKIEKS. 


Where  the  contract  specially  provides  for  shipment  in  open  cars^ 
the  carrier  is  still  bound  to  use  all  reasonable  appliances  to  pre- 
vent loss,  and  is  liable  for  damages  resulting  from  a  failure  to  do 
so.^  And  notice  to  the  consignor  of  such  intended  shipment  will 
not  relieve  the  carrier  from  liability,  if  actual  negligence  be 
shown.^ 

§  2.  Negligence  must  have  been  proximate  cause  of  injury. 

The  breach  of  duty  on  which  an  action  for  loss  or  injury  can  be 
maintained  must  be  the  proximate  cause  of  the  loss  or  injury  sus- 
tained; and  the  proximate  cause  of  an  event  is  that  which,  in  a 
natural  and  continuous  sequence,  unbroken  by  any  new  and  inde- 
pendent cause,  produces  that  event  and  without  which  that  event 
would  not  have  occurred.^^  As  a  general  rule,  the  question  of 
proximate  cause  is  for  the  jury.'^* 

§  3.  Negligence  in  stowage  of  goods. 

In  the  case  of  carriers  by  water,  if  due  care,  skill  and  diligence 
are  not  used  in  and  about  the  stowage  of  the  cargo,  the  carrier  is 
liable  for  the  consequences.^  But  a  loss  from  stowage  is  not  neces- 
sarily a  loss  from  negligence,  since  it  may  be  necessary  in  order  to 

21.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moss,  Ck).,  172  Pa.  St.  64C,  37  W.  N.  C. 
60  Miss.  1003,  45  Am.  Rep.  428,  21  (Pa.)  458,  33  Atl.  713;  Deming  v. 
Am  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  98;  Louisville,  Merchants  Cotton-Press,  etc.,  Co.,  90 
etc  R.  Co.  V.  Natchez,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Tenn.  306;  Martin  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
67  Miss  399,  43  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  R.  Co.,  55  Ark.  510;  McAllister  v. 
g^           ■        '  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Mo.  351,  4 

22.  Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ed-  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  210.  See  Ndlis 
monds,  4l''Ala.  667;  New  Orleans,  Street  Railroad  Accident  Law,  pp.  24 
etc    r'  Co.  v.  Faler,  58  Miss.  912.  to  35. 

23.  Lowery  v.  Manhattan  Ry.  Co.,  24.  Cox  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 
99  N.  Y.   158,  1  N.  E.  608,   52  Am.  F.  &  F.  77 

Rep      12-     Hofnagel    v.    New    York  25.  Nelson   v.   National    Steamship 

Cent      etc      R     Co.,    55    N.   Y.    612;  Co.,  7  Ben.   (U.  S.)   340;  The  Maggie 

Cleveland,'  etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Lind-  M.,    30    Fed.    692;    Paturzo   v.    Cam- 

eay   109  111  App.  533;  Cleveland,  etc.,  pagnie  Francaise,   31   Fed.   611;   The 

R.  Co.  V.   Carey,    (Ind.  App.)    71  N.  Bitterne,   35   Fed.   927;   The  Glamor- 

E.  244;  Scott  v.  Allegheny  Valley  R.  ganshire,  50  Fed.  840. 


NEGLIGENCE  OF  CARRIER.  55a 

load  the  ship  suitably  for  her  intended  voyage  to  place  particular 
goods  in  a  certain  place,  or  articles  whose  dangerous  character  is 
unknown  may  be  stowed  in  a  usual  and  safe  manner  near  other 
goods  which  are  injured  by  them,  without  actual  fault  being  im- 
puted to  the  shipper  or  the  carrier.^®  A  "  clear  "  bill  of  lading, 
or  one  which  is  silent  as  to  the  place  of  stowage,  imports  a  con- 
tract that  the  goods  are  to  be  stowed  under  deck,  and  where  the 
goods  are  stowed  on  deck,  the  carrier  is  liable,  unless  it  can  show 
that  the  goods  were  of  a  description  which  by  the  usage  of  the 
particular  trade  or  general  commercial  usage  are  properly  stowed 
in  that  way.^^  But,  under  such  a  bill  of  lading,  a  large  coasting 
steamer  carrying  cotton  between  the  main  and  upper  decks,  en- 
closed by  iron  bulwarks  and  wooden  shutters  and  bulkheads,  cus- 
tomarily used  for  that  purpose,  is  not  liable  for  injury  from  sea 
water  caused  by  an  unusual  storm,  which  flooded  the  ship  and 
broke  down  the  bulkhead  and  shutters.^^  What  will  or  will  not 
constitute  negligence  stowage  is  generally  a  question  of  fact.  Jivi- 
dence  of  the  customary  mode  of  stowage  is  admissible  on  this 
question.^^  Where  the  carrier  has  no  knowledge  of  and  no  reason 
to  suspect  the  dangerous  character  of  the  contents  of  a  package, 
it  is  not  liable  for  injuries  resulting  from  the  explosion  of  sub- 
stances delivered  to  it  for  transportation,  in  the  nbsence  of  proof 
of  negligence  on  its  part.^*^  It  is  bound  to  use  the  same  degree 
of  care  that  merchants  or  insurers  would  exercise  in  handling  such 

26.  Pierce  v.  Winsor,  2  Cliff.  (U.  Abb.  Adm.  (U.  S.)  348;  Tie  Port- 
S.)      18.  uense,   35   Fed.   670;    Lamb  v.   Pa,rk- 

27.  The    Delaware,    14    Wall.     (U.      man,  1  Sprague   (U.  S.)    343. 

S.)    579;    Sproat  v.   Donnell,  26  Me.  A  vessel   is  liable  for  damages  to 

185;  Lapham  v.  Atlas  Insurance  Co.,  cargo   caused  by  water   in  the   hold, 

24  Pick.  (Mass.)   1;  Rich  v.  Lambert,  not  removed  because  the  pumps  were 

12   How.    (U.  S.)    347.  in  bad  condition,  and  reasonable  care 

28.  The  William  Crane,  50  Fed.  was  not  taken  to  ascertain  the  depth 
444.  of  the  water  or  to  remove  it  by  other 

29.  Paturzo  v.  Oampaigne  Fran-  means.  The  Euripides,  52  Fed.  161. 
caise,  31  Fed.  611;  The  Chasca,  23  30.  Nitro-glycerine  Case,  17  Wall. 
Fed.    156;    The   Invincible,    1    Lowell  (U.  S.)   534. 

(U.    S.)    225:    Baxter    v.    T^^land.    1 


55i  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

substances  where  their  dangerous  character  is  known,^^  but  the 
burden  is  on  the  shipper  to  prove  that  an  explosion  was  the  result 
of  negligence  or  improper  transportation  on  the  part  of  the 
carrier.^^ 

31.  "White    V.     Colorado     Cent.     R.  22.  Walker  v.  Chieago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

Co.,   5   Dill    (U.   S.)    428,   3   McCrary  71  Iowa,  658,  30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 

(U.  S.)   559;  Henry  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  173. 
R.  Co.,  67  Fed.  436. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

CONTKIBUTORY  NEGLIGENCE  OF  ShIPPEE, 

SBcrrioir     1.  Contributory  negligence  of  shipper  generally. 

2.  Defective  packing  or  marking. 

3.  Goods  improperly  loaded. 

4.  Liability  of  shipper  or  consignee  to  carrier  for  negligence  in  un- 

loading. 

5.  Liability   of   shipper   for   injury   caused   by   goods   of   dangerous 
character. 

6.  Goods  lost  because  of  defects  in  cars  or  appliances  furnished  by- 
carrier. 

7.  Goods  lost  because  of  defects  in  appliances  furnished  by  shipper. 

§  1.  Contributory  negligence  of  shipper  generally. 

A  shipper  of  goods  perishable  in  their  nature  or  susceptible  of 
easy  breakage  must  take  extra  care  in  packing  and  boxing,  and 
a  carrier  is  not  liable  for  injury  or  damage  to  goods  from  insecure 
or  imperfect  packing  or  boxing.^  A  consignor  cannot  recover  for 
ioss  of  perishable  goods  shipped  in  bad  condition,  even  though  the 
carrier's  negligence  contributed  to  the  loss,  unless  by  ordinary  care 
ihe  former  could  not  have  avoided  the  consequences  of  the  latter' s 
negligence.^  Where  goods  are  shipped  under  a  contract  between 
the  owner  and  the  carrier  by  which  the  owner  or  his  servant  are  to 
accompany  the  property  and  take  care  of  it,  the  carrier  will  not 

1.  Goodman  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  Klauber  v.  American  Express  Co.,  21 

23  Or.  14,  28  Pac.  894,  59  Am.  k,  Eng.  Wis.   21,   91   Am.   Dee.   452. 
R.  C«is.  87;  Shrive"  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  2.  Reed    v.    Philadelphia,    etc.,    R. 

R,   Co.,   24   Minn.   506,   31   Am.   Rep.  Co.,   3  Houst.    (Del.)    176;   American 

353,  but  it  is  liable  for  injuries  oc-  Express    Co.    v.    Smith,    33    Ohio    St. 

curring  independently  of  the  defective  511,  31  Am.  Rep.  561;   Illinois  Cent, 

packing;    Barbour   v.   South   Eastern  R.  Co.  v.  McClellan,  54  111.  58,  5  Am. 

R.  Co.,  34  L.  T.  N.  S.  67;   Truax  v.  Rep.  83;  Baldwin  v.  London,  etc.,  R. 

Philadelphia,    etc.,   R.   Co.,    3    Housit.  Co.,  9  Q.  B.  Div.  582,  9  Am.  &  Eng. 

(Del.)   233;  Culbreth  v.  Philadelphia,  R.    Cas.    175. 
etc.,    R.    Co.,    3    Houafc.     (Del.)     392; 

(555) 


55G  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

incur  any  liability  for  the  loss  of  the  goods  resulting  from  the 
shipper's  breach  of  the  contract  or  negligence  in  its  performance.' 
The  conduct  of  the  shipper  will  not  be  held  negligent  per  se,  un- 
less such  negligence  is  the  only  inference  that  can  be  fairly  drawn 
from  the  facts.*  When  the  evidence  is  conflicting  as  to  the  negli- 
gence of  the  shipper  and  as  to  whether  such  negligence  was  the 
proximate  cause  of  the  loss,  the  questions  are  properly  for  the 
jury.^  So,  where  there  is  a  question  as  to  whether  the  negligence 
of  the  carrier  or  that  of  the  shipper  caused  the  injury,  it  is  for 
the  jury  to  say  which  default  was  the  proximate  cause  of  the 
loss.®  A  shipper  who  in  routing  a  shipment  selected  a  longer  route 
than  he  could  have  taken  was  not  guilty  of  contributory  negligence 
causing  injury  to  the  shipment,  where  the  carrier  in  the  exercise 
of  ordinary  care  could  have  transported  the  shipment  without 
damage.^  If  a  fire  destroying  a  car  load  of  high  proof  spirits  was 
of  spontaneous  origin,  caused  by  contact  with  the  air,  the  carrier 
was  not  liable  therefor  where,  on  delivery  of  the  car  to  the  con- 
signee, it  notified  his  agent  that  one  of  the  barrels  containing  the 
spirits  was  broken.^  While  carriers,  in  the  absence  of  stipulation 
to  the  contrary,  are  insurers  of  goods  intrusted  to  them  for  ship- 
ment, they  vsdll  not  be  so  held  where  loss  or  damage  results  from 
the  negligence  of  the  shipper.^  In  an  action  for  the  value  of  goods 
and  for  penalty  for  refusing  to  adjust  a  freight  loss  claim,  the 

3.  Hart  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7.  Uber  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 
56  Iowa,  166,  41  Am.  Rep.  93,  27  Am.  151  Wis.  431,  138  N.  W.  57. 
&.Eng.  R.  C^s.  59;  Purcell  v.  South-  8.  Rothchild  Bros.  v.  Northern  Pac. 
era  Express  Co.,  34  Ga.  315,  37  Ga.  Ry.  Co.,  68  Wash.  527,  123  Pac.  1011. 
103,  92  Am.  Dec.  53 ;  Willoughby  v.  9.  Currie  v.  Seaboard  Air  Line  Ry., 
Horridge,  12   C.  B.  742,   74  E.  C.  L.  156  N.  C.  432,  72  S.  E.  493. 

742,  17  Jut.  323.  A  common  carrier  is  not  liable  for 

4.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Phila-  the  loss  of  goods  caused  by  the  sihip- 
delphia  Fire  Assoc,  55  Ark.  163,  18  per's  act,  whether  it  be  one  of  negli- 
S.  W.  43.  gence    or    accident.      American    Lead 

5.  Cobb  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  38  Pencil  Co.  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  Ry.,  124 
Iowa,  601.  Tenn.  67,  134  S.  W.  €13. 

6.  Purc.ell  V.  Southern  Express  Co., 
S4  Ga.  315. 


CONTRIBUTORY    NEGLIGENCE   OF   SHIPPER.  557 

fact  that  the  shipment  remained  in  the  depot  at  the  destination, 
five  days  after  plaintiff  paid  the  freight  charges  and  signed  the 
waybill  does  not  show  contributory  negligence,  though  it  might 
tend  to  show  that  the  company's  liability  as  a  carrier  had  ceased, 
and  that  its  liability  was  only  that  of  a  warehouseman.^'^  In  an 
action  against  a  railroad  company  for  failure  to  ship  certain  seed, 
plaintiff  cannot  recover  if  he  was  guilty  of  contributory  negligence 
in  exposing  the  seed  to  rains,  and  permitting  it  to  remain  so  ex- 
posed for  a  period  during  which  rains  would  likely  fall  upon  it, 
whereby  it  would  heat  and  spoil.^^  Where  a  shipper,  either  before 
or  after  shipment,  directly  or  indirectly,  intentionally  or  uninten- 
tionally, causes  the  injury  to  or  destruction  of  the  goods  shipped, 
the  carrier  is  not  liable.^^  While  a  shipper  must  bear  the  loss 
resulting  solely  from  a  misdirection  of  goods,  the  carrier  is  liable 
when  guilty  of  negligence  without  which,  notwithstanding  the 
shipper's  mistake,  the  loss  would  not  have  occurred;  and,  where 
shipping  instructions  are  not  clear,  it  is  the  carrier's  duty,  unless 
an  emergency  arises,  to  hold  them  and  ask  further  instructions 
from  the  shipper.^^  While  ordinarily  a  common  carrier  which 
receives  goods  for  shipment  is  required  to  deliver  them  according 
to  agreement,  yet,  when  the  owner  accompanies  them,  the  general 
liability  is  limited  to  the  extent  that  the  carrier  is  in  no  sense 
liable  for  any  injury  or  loss  that  may  occur  through  the  act  of 
the  owner  or  through  any  agency  that  is  under  his  exclusive  con- 
trol." A  common  carrier  of  chattels  does  not  insure  them  against 
their  own  fault  or  the  fault  of  their  owner;  nor  against  damage 
caused  by  an  inherent  defect  in  the  chattels  carried,  or  by  a  want 
of  care  which  the  owner  was  bound  to  exercise.^^     If  the  owner 

10.  Saunders  v.   Southern  Ry.   Co.,  13.  Weaver    v.    Southern    Ry.    Co., 
90  S.  C.  79,  72  S.  E.  637.  135  Mo.  App.  310,  115  S.   W.   500. 

11.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beatty,  14.  Nunnelee  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry. 
27  Okl.  844,   116  Pac.   171.  Co.,  145  Mo.  App.  17,  139  S.  W.  763. 

12.  Coweta    County    v.    Central    of  15.  Rixford  v.  Smith,  52  N.  H.  355, 
Ga.  Ry.  Co.,  4  Ga.  App.  94,  60  S.  E.  13  Am.  Rep.  42. 

1018. 


558  THE  LAW  OF  CAKRiEKS. 

of  goods  accompany  them  to  take  care  of  them,  and  is  himself 
guilty  of  negligence,  resulting  in  loss  or  injury,  he  cannot  recover 
from  the  common  carrier.^^  Where  a  contract  for  the  shipment  of 
semi-perishable  evaporated  apples  provided  that,  if  the  fruit  was 
not  removed  by  the  consignee  within  twenty-four  hours  after  its 
arrival  at  destination,  it  might  be  kept  in  the  car  at  the  sole  risk 
of  the  owner,  and  the  consignee  was  promptly  informed  of  the 
arrival  of  the  fruit  at  its  destination,  and  knew  the  character  of 
the  fruit,  the  weather  conditions,  and  the  provisions  of  the  con- 
tract of  shipment,  but  failed  to  unload  the  fruit  for  several  days, 
made  no  effort  to  protect  it,  and  did  not  complain  as  to  its  being 
kept  in  the  car,  although  fully  infc»rmed  thereof,  he  was  guilty 
of  such  negligence  as  to  preclude  a  recovery  from  the  carrier  for 
injury  resulting  to  the  fruit  from  being  left  in  the  car."  The 
fact  that  a  consignee,  after  discovering  the  carrier's  negligence  in 
failing  to  transport  the  goods  in  a  reasonable  time,  failed  to  use 
ordinary  care  to  avoid  the  injury  caused  by  such  negligence,  will 
not  preclude  him  from  recovering  the  damages  actually  caused  to 
him  by  such  negligence,  which  he  could  not,  by  ordinary  diligence, 
have  prevented/*  Where  plaintiff  shipped  goods  consigned  to 
himself  at  a  flag  station  on  defendant's  road,  where  defendant 
maintained  a  warehouse,  plaintiff  was  not  guilty  of  laches  in  that 
he  was  not  prepared  to  receive  and  remove  the  same  until  the  day 
following  the  day  on  which  he  received  notice  of  arrival/' 

§  2.  Defective  packing  or  marking. 

The  fact  that  an  article  was  not  properly  packed,  when  delivered 
to  a  common  carrier,  does  not  reduce  its  liability  to  that  of  a  bailee 
for  hire,  or  exempt  it  from  making  proof  that  a  loss  alleged  was 

16.  Wilsons    T.    Hamilton,    4    Ohio       Co.  of  Texas,  92  Tex.  593,   50  S.  W. 
St.    722.  559,  rev'g  judg.   (Civ.  App.)  47  S.  W. 

17.  Becker  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,       384,  1020. 

109  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   230,  56  N.  Y.  19.  Normile  v.  Northern  Pac.   Ry, 

g^jpp.   1.  Co.,   36   Wash.   21,   77   Pac.   1087,   67 

18.  Belcher    v.    Missouri,    etc.,    R.      L.  R.  A.  271. 


CONTRIBUTORY   NEGLIGENCE   OF    SHIPPER.  559 

not  attributable  to  its  negligence.^"  Carrying  goods  in  a  manifestly 
unsafe  condition  is  negligence,  and  where  the  carrier  has  failed 
to  exercise  its  right  to  refuse  to  transport  goods  defectively  packed, 
where  the  defect  is  visible,  it  becomes  liable,  if  the  goods  are  dam- 
aged, although  partly  through  the  packing;  and  the  defective 
packing  only  goes  in  reduction  of  damages.^^  The  carrier  is  not 
liable  for  errors  or  defects  in  marking  or  direction  by  reason  of 
which  goods  cannot  be  sent  to  the  right  person  or  destination  or 
may  be  sent  to  a  wrong  person  or  destination,^^  even  where  the 
carrier  addresses  them  wrongly  by  the  shipper's  direction.^^  But 
the  carrier  has  a  right  and  it  is  its  duty  to  refuse  to  receive  the 
goods,  if  it  knows  the  address  to  be  insufficient  or  erroneous,  and 
if  it  consents  to  carry  them  after  notice  of  their  imperfect  mark- 
ing, it  assumes  responsibility  for  a  safe  and  proper  delivery.^* 
And  the  carrier  should  re-mark  the  goods,  if  necessary  to  insure 
safe  delivery,  where  it  has  knowledge  of  the  correct  address  and 
gives  a  bill  of  lading  and  the  goods  are  imperfectly  marked,  or 
it  will  be  responsible  for  loss  or  misdelivery.^^  So  where  the  de- 
fective marking  is  due  to  the  carrier's  fault,  or  if  the  marking 
becomes  illegible  through  its  fault.^^    But,  in  such  cases,  in  order 

20.  Union  Express  Co.  v.  Graham,  Finn  v.  Western  R.  Corp.,  102  Mass, 
26   Ohio  St.   595.     See  Van   Horn  v.      283. 

Taylor,  2  La.  Ann.  587,  46  Am.  Dec.  23.  Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,   84   111. 

658;  Nelson  v.  Stephenson,  12  N.  Y.  239,    16   Am.   Ry.   Rep.   457,   25    Am, 

Super  Ct.    (5  Duer)    538,  Rep.  451. 

21.  McCarthy  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  24.  O'Rourke    v,    Chicago,    etc,    R. 
Co.,  102  Ala.  193,  14  So.  370,  48  Am.  Co.,  44  Iowa,  526;   Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co, 
St,  Rep,  29,  61  Am,  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  v,   Maetze,   2   Tex.  App.  Civ,   Cas,,   § 
178;    Higginbotham   v.   Great  North-  31,   18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas,   613, 
ern  R,   Co.,   10   W,   R.   358.  25.  Guillaume    v.    General    Transp. 

22.  Congar  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Co.,  100  N,  Y.  491;  Kreuder  v.  Wool- 
24  Wis.  157,  1  Am.  Rep.  164;  Stim-  cott,  1  Hilt.  (N.  Y.)  223;  Richmond, 
son  V.  Jackson,  58  N.  H.  138;  Lake  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Benson,  86  Ga.  203,  22 
Shore,  etc.,  R,  Co.  v,  Hodapp,  83  Pa.  Am.  St.  Rep.  446;  Wright  v,  North- 
St.  22,  16  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  167;  The  ern  Cent.  R,  Co..  8  Phila.  (Pa.)  19; 
Huntress,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,914,  Davies  Mahon  v.  Blake,  125  Mass.  477. 

(U,  S.)    82;   Southern  Express  Co,  v.  26.  Meyer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R,  Co., 

Kaufman,  59  Tenn.   (12  Heisk.)    161;       34  Wis.  566,  1  Am.  Rep.  207;   Foard 


5(;o  A'HE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

to  exonerate  the  carrier,  it  is  necessary  that  the  negligence  of  the 
shipper  should  contribute  to  the  loss,  and  whether  or  not  it  does 
is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  jurj.^  Where  the  proximate  cause  of 
the  loss  of  goods  was  the  negligence  of  the  shipper  in  marking  or 
packing,  the  carrier  is  not  responsible.^^  A  common  carrier  is  not 
responsible  for  loss  or  injury  occasioned  by  bad  or  imperfect  pack- 
ing, or  other  carelessness  or  negligence  of  the  shipper,  or  for  ordi- 
nary wear  and  tear  of  the  goods  in  the  course  of  transportation.^' 
In  an  action  for  damage  to  goods  while  in  the  hands  of  a  carrier, 
it  is  no  defense  that  the  goods  were  delivered  to  the  carrier  in 
insufficient  packages,  and  that  the  defect  was  not  discoverable, 
unless  the  carrier  shows  that  the  loss  actually  resulted  from  such 
insufficiency,  and  though  no  fault  of  the  carrier.^**  The  carrier  is 
not  excused  from  liability  for  loss  of  oil  in  a  barrel  caused  by 
standing  it  on  end,  instead  of  on  the  bilge  in  the  car,  by  the  fact 
that  the  barrel  was  old  and  defective.^^  As  to  external  protection 
of  the  goods,  the  owner  is  not  required  to  cover  them  so  as  to  be 
safe  against  the  action  of  rain  or  wind  or  fire  not  happening  by 
the  act  of  God.^^ 

§  3.  Goods  improperly  loaded. 

The  carrier  is  not  responsible  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods 
occasioned  by  their  being  improperly  loaded  on  the  cars  by  the 
shipper.  Where  the  shipper  loaded  heavy  machinery  upon  a  plat- 
form car,  and  blocked  its  wheels  with  insufficient  blocking  inse- 
curely nailed,  by  reason  whereof  the  machinery,  while  being  trans- 
ported by  the  carrier,  broke  from  its  fastenings  without  fault  of 

V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   8  Jones   L.  28.  Broadwood  v.  Southern  Expnss 

(N.  C.)   235,  78  Am.  Dec.  277;   For-  Co.,  148  Ala.  17,  41  So.  769. 

eythe  v.  Walker,  9  Pa.  St.  148.  29.  Carpenter  v.  Baltimore  &  0.  R. 

27.  Viner    v.    New    York,    etc.,    R.  Co.,  6  Pen.    (Del.)    15,  64  Atl.  252. 

Co.,  50  N.  Y.  23;  Hutchinson  v.  Chi-  30.  Zerega  v.  Poppe,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 

cago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Minn.  524,  35  N.  18,   213   (Abb.  Adm.  397). 

W.  433;   Shriver  v.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  31.  Thompson   v.    Chicago,   etc.,   R. 

R.   Co.,   24  Minn.   506,   31   Am.   Rep.  Co.,  27  Iowa,  561. 

R53.  32.  Klauber    v.    American    Express 

Co.,  21  Wis.  21,  91  Am.  Rep,  452. 


CONTRIBUTORY   NEGLIGENCE   OF    SHIPPER.  561 

the  carrier  in  the  running  of  the  train,  or  in  the  maintenance  of 
the  track,  and  was  injured,  the  carrier  was  not  liable  therefor, 
although  its  yard  master  and  forwarder  of  freight  cars  saw  the 
fastenings,  and  noticed  their  insufficiency,  before  the  injury  was 
done.^  But  an  answer  by  a  carrier  sued  by  a  consignee  for  a  fail- 
ure to  deliver  goods  which  it  agreed  to  transport  to  him  at  a  certain 
destination,  setting  up  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  owner  and 
consignor  in  the  mode  of  loading  the  goods  on  the  car,  is  bad  where 
it  does  not  allege  that  such  fault  of  the  owner  was  the  sole  cause  of 
the  loss  of  the  goods ;  contributory  negligence  on  the  o^vner's  part 
not  being  a  valid  defense.^*  Directions  given  by  a  shipper  of 
fruit  for  loading  do  not  preclude  a  recovery  for  damages  thereto.^^ 
Where  a  consignor  loads  freight  on  a  car  or  packs  articles  for  ship- 
ment, the  carrier  receiving  the  car  as  loaded  or  the  package  as 
prepared  is  not  liable  for  damages  arising  from  a  defect  in  the 
loading  or  packing.^®  Where  a  shipper  assumes  the  duty  of  loading 
cars  for  shipment,  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  damages  arising 
from  the  improper  loading  of  the  goods,  notwithstanding  knowl- 
edge of  the  conductor  of  the  improper  loading.'^  A  carrier  is  not 
liable  for  damages  to  a  wagon  caused  by  its  being  blown  from  a 
platform  car  during  transportation,  where  the  shipper  assumed 
the  sole  charge  and  responsibility  of  loading  and  fastening  the 
wagon,  and  there  had  been  a  high  wind  for  a  sufficient  time  before 
the  train  started  to  enable  him  to  either  further  fasten  the  wagon, 
or  to  countermand  the  order  for  its  shipment.^*     Where  a  shipper 

33.  Ross  V.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  35.  St.  Louis  S.  W.  R.  Co.  of  Texas 
Vt.  364,  24  Am.  Rep.  144.  See  also  v.  Woldert  Grocery  Co.,  (Tex.  Civ. 
Van  Horn  v.  Taylor,  2  La.  Ann.  587,      App.)    144  S.  W.  1194. 

46  Am.  Dec.  558.  36.  Gulf,  etc.,   Ry.   Co.  v.   Wittne- 

34.  McCarthy  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  bert,  101  Tex.  368,  108  S.  W.  150,  14 
Co.,  102  Ala.  193,  14  So.  370,  48  Am.      L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.)    1227. 

St.  Rep.  29,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cos.  37.  International   &   G.   N.   R.   Co. 

178.     See  also  Carriers  of  live  stock,  v.   H.   P.   Drought   &   Co.    (Tex.   Civ. 

cbap.    18.      A    witness    who   properly  App.)    100  S.  W.  1011. 

qualifies  himself  may  give  his   opin-  38.  Miltimore  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W, 

ion,    in    such    action,    that    the    cars  Ry.  Co.,  37  Wis.  190, 

were  "  well  and  carefully  loaded."  Id. 

36 


562  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

has  a  side  track  into  his  own  yard,  and  loads  his  shipments  him- 
self, the  railroad  company  is  not  required  to  inspect  the  manner 
of  loading  every  load,  regardless  of  whether  the  circumstances  are 
such  that  the  railroad  company  has  a  right  to  rely  upon  an  under- 
standing with  the  shipper  as  to  how  the  cars  are  to  be  loaded."^ 
If  a  shipper  is  negligent  in  packing  a  car,  and  from  breakage  of 
certain  of  the  goods  a  fire  originates  therein,  and  if,  after  knowl- 
edge by  the  carrier  of  the  existence  of  the  fire,  the  condition  is 
such  that  the  goods  may  be  preserved,  or  the  fire  extinguished,  by 
the  use  of  extraordinary  care  on  his  part,  he  will  not  be  relieved 
from  liability,  if  he  is  negligent  in  this  regard,  by  setting  up  the 
original  negligence  of  the  shipper  in  loading  the  car  prior  to  the 
beginning  of  the  transportation.*" 

§  4.  Liability  of  shipper  or  consignee  to  carrier  for  negligence  in 
unloading. 
A  railroad  company  may  recover  from  a  customer  to  whom  it 
lias  delivered  on  a  side  track  a  car  of  lumber  safely  fastened,  for 
negligence  of  the  latter  in  leaving  it  partially  unloaded  and  with 
the  supports  removed,  in  consequence  of  which  the  lumber  falls 
or  is  blovni  upon  the  adjacent  track,  causing  injury  to  an  approach- 
ing train.  The  failure  of  the  carrier  to  keep  a  watchman  at  the 
side  track  and  the  fact  that  the  lumber  was  transported  on  a  flat 
car  and  not  on  a  lumber  car  did  not  constitute  contributory  negli- 
gence preventing  a  recovery.  In  such  a  case  the  carrier  having 
no  knowledge  or  notice  of  the  danger,  owed  no  duty  whatever  to 
act  upon  the  assumption  that  the  danger  might  exist,  and  thus  take 
affirmative  measures  to  protect  itself  against  any  wrong  which  the 
owner  of  the  goods  might  inflict  upon  it.*^ 

39.  Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Kenwood  fault  of  the  shipper  without  negli- 
Brid"-e  Co.,  170  111.  645,  49  N.  E.  gence  of  the  carrier,  the  carrier  will 
215,  rev'g  judg.  69  111.  App.  145.  not  be  responsible. 

40.  Atlanta  &  W.  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Ja-  41.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  At- 
cobs'  Pharmacy  Co.,  135  Ga.  113,  38  lantie  Refining  Co.,  129  N.  Y.  597,  49 
g.  E.  1039,  if  the  loss  of  goods  during  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  131,  revg.  13  N. 
transit  was  caused  by  the  wrong  or  Y.  Supp.  466.     See  also  Chapman  v. 


CONTRIBUTORY   NEGLIGENCE   OF   SHIPPER.  563 

§  5.  Liability  of  shipper  for  injury  caused  by  goods  of  dangerous 
character. 
One  who  has  in  his  possession  a  dangerous  article,  which  he 
desires  to  send  to  another,  may  send  it  by  a  common  carrier  if 
it  will  accept  and  carry  it;  but  it  is  his  duty  to  give  the  carrier 
notice  of  its  character,  so  that  it  may  either  refuse  to  take  it, 
or  be  enabled,  if  it  takes  it,  to  make  suitable  provisions  against 
danger.  The  omission  to  give  the  carrier  such  notice  is  an  act 
of  negligence  which  will  render  the  shipper  liable  for  all  dam- 
ages arising  from  explosion  of  the  articles  shipped,  and  the  car- 
rier will  not  be  presumed  to  have  had  knowledge  of  the  nature  of 
the  contents  of  the  package  where  there  are  no  attendant  circum- 
stances to  arouse  its  suspicions  as  to  their  true  character/^  The 
duty  does  not  arise  from  any  contract,  express  or  implied,  but 
from  the  principle  expressed  in  the  maxim,  Sic  utere  tuo  ut 
alienum  non  laedas.*^  The  principal  is  liable  if  the  article  is 
shipped  by  his  agent.**  The  shipper  is  not  liable  where  the  carrier 
had  been  informed  of  the  nature  of  the  package  either  directly  or 
by  the  marking  of  the  package,  even  though  an  employe  of  the 
carrier  had  no  knowledge  of  its  dangerous  character,  if  the  injury 
could  have  been  avoided  by  the  exercise  of  ordinary  care  and  pru- 
dence.*^    Where  a  contractor  of  blasting  ordered  a  manufacturer 

Atlantic  Refining  Co.,  108  N.  Y.  638,  43.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shanly, 

38  Hun    (N.  Y.)    637.  supra;   Wellington   v.   Downer   Kero- 

42.  Barney    v.    Burnstenbinder,    64  sene  Oil  Co.,  104  Mass.  64;  Carter  v. 

Barb.    (N.  Y.)    212,  7  Lans.    (N.  Y.)  Towne,    98   Mass.    567,    96   Am.    Dec. 

210;    Nitro-glycerine    Case,    15   Wall.  682. 

(U.  S.)    524;   Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  44.  Barney       v.       Burnstenbinder, 

Shanly,    107   Mass.    568,    3    Am.   Ry.  supra;   Thomas   v.   Winchester,   6   N. 

Rep.  396,  12  Am.  L.  Reg.  N.  S.  500;  Y.    397. 

Standard   Oil  Co.  v.  Tierney,  92  Ky.  45.  Standard    Oil    Co.    v.    Tierney, 

367,  36  Am.  St.  Rep.  595,  49  Am.  &  (Ky.)    27  S.  W.  938,  16  Ky.  L.  Hep. 

Eng.  R.   Oas.  117 ;   Heme  v.   Garton,  327,  revg.  92  Ky.  367,  36  Am.  St.  Rep. 

2   El.  &  EI.   66,   105   E.   C.  L.   66,   5  595,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas,  117,  17 

Jur.  N.  S.  648;  Brass  v.  Maitland,  6  S.  W.   1025,   13  Ky.  L.  Rep.   626,   11 

El.  &  Bl.  471;  88  E.  C.  L.  471;  Far-  Ry.  &  Corp.  L.  J.  92. 

rant  v.  Barnes,  11  C.  B.  N.  S.  557,  103  A   subsequent  change   in   the  man- 

E.  C.  L.  557,  8  Jur.  N.  S.  868.  ner  of  branding  cannot  be  proved  in 


564  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

to  send  him  a  quantity  of  dualin,  and  another  to  send  him  cer- 
tain exploders.     Each  manufacturer,  without  the  other's  knowl- 
edge, delivered  the  respective  articles  to  a  carrier,  who  was  ignor- 
ant of  the  danger  of  combining  the  two  substances,  which,  while 
being  transported  with  due  care,  exploded,  injuring  the  property 
of  the  carrier,  and  the  goods  of  a  third  party.     It  was  impossible 
to  distinguish  what  proportion  of  the  explosion  was  caused  by 
either  substance.    It  was  held  that  the  two  manufacturers,  but  not 
the  contractor,  were  jointly  liable  in  tort,  to  the  carrier  and  to 
the  third  party,  and  the  fact  that  the  omission  of  the  shipper's 
agent  to  give  notice  of  the  dangerous  character  of  the  articles  was 
a  criminal  or  illegal  act,  did  not  affect  the  principal's  liability  for 
damages  in  a  civil  action.^^     There  is  an  implied  contract  on  the 
part  of  the  shipper  that  his  goods  are  not  of  such  a  character  as 
to  cause  injury,  and  the  knowledge  of  the  agent  of  the  shipper  is 
the  knowledge  of  the  principal,  although  such  knowledge  must 
be  shown  in  order  to  fix  liability  upon  the  latter.*^     In  a  recent 
case  it  has  been  held  that  illuminating  gas,  compressed  into  steel 
cylinders  of  insufficient  strength  to  hold  it,  though  liable  to  ex- 
plode by  its  tendency  to  expand  when  heated,  is  not  within  the 
provisions  of  the  United  States  statutes,  forbidding  the  carriage 
on  passenger  vessels  of  camphene,  nitro  glycerine,  benzine,  benzola, 
coal  oil,  crude  or  refined  petroleum,  or  "  other  like  explosive  burn- 
ing fluids  or  like  dangerous  articles,"  as  the  danger  lies  not  in  the 
gas  itself,  but  in  the  weakness  of  the  vessel  containing  it.**     A 
shipper  of  inflammable  and  explosive  acids  owes  a  common-law 

an  action  for  negligence  in  shipping  46.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shanly, 

it    improperly   branded.      Id.;    Morse  supra.     In   the  Nitro-glycerine   Case, 

V.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Minn.  the    carrier    was    held    not    liable   to 

465,    11    Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.    168;  third  parties. 

Lang  V.  Sanger,   76  Wis.  71;   Nalley  47.  Barney       v.       Burnstenbinder, 

V.  Hartford  Carpet  Co.,  51  Conn.  524,  supra;  Jeffrey  v.  Bigelow,  13   Wend. 

50  Am.   Reip.   47;    Terre   Haute,  etc.,  (N.  Y.)    518. 

R.  Co.  V.  Clem,  123  Ind.  15,  18  Am.  48.  Russell   v.   New   Jersey    Steam- 

St.  Rep.  303,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  boat  Co.,  10  Misc.  Rep.   (N.  Y.)    593, 

229.  32  TSr.  Y.  Supp.  824. 


CONTEIBUTORY   NEGLIGENCE   OF   SfflPPER.  5(55 

duty  to  give  notice  to  the  carrier  of  their  nature,  in  order  that  they 
may  be  so  designated  on  the  shipping  bill,  a  failure  to  perform 
which  relieves  the  carrier  from  liability  for  the  loss  of  the  goods 
due  to  explosion  and  fire  caused  by  a  portion  of  the  acids  leaking 
from  their  containers.^ 

§  6.  Goods  lost  because  of  defects  in  cars  or  appliances  furnished 
by  carrier. 

It  is  not  the  duty  of  a  shipper  to  inspect  a  car  furnished  by  a 
carrier,  or  to  exercise  care  to  know  whether  the  car  is  in  condition ; 
but  he  may  assume  that  the  carrier  would  not  have  directed  the 
placing  of  the  goods  in  the  car  unless  it  was  suitable.^"  It  is  not 
a  part  of  the  implied  contract  of  shipment  that  a  shipper  should 
declare  the  true  weight  of  an  article  shipped,  and  a  shipper  is  not 
liable  for  negligence  in  understating  the  weight  of  an  article  of 
obvious  nature,  where  an  injury  occurs  because  the  tackle  used 
in  unloading  it  is  insufiicient,  though  adequate  for  the  weight 
stated.^^  The  fact  that  a  shipper  packed  and  shipped  apples  in 
2^ovember  from  New  York  to  Minnesota  in  a  box  car  did  not  con- 
stitute contributory  negligence  so  as  to  preclude  recovery  for 
damages  by  frost,  which  defendant  railroad  company  might  have 
prevented  by  reasonable  care.^^  Where  a  carrier  allowed  a  con- 
signee to  retain  exclusive  possession  of  a  refrigerator  car  for  the 
storage  of  fruit  shipped  for  a  consideration,  after  the  relation 
of  carrier  and  warehouseman  had  ended  by  acceptance  of  goods 
and  payment  of  freight,  the  duty  did  not  devolve  upon  the  con- 
signee to  repair  the  car  to  prevent  damage  to  the  fruit.^^    Thouo-h 

49.  Bradley  v.  Lake  Shore  &  M.  S.  52.  Calender-Vanderhoof  €0.  v. 
Co.,  145  Div.  (N.  Y.)  312,  129  N.  Y.  Chicago,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  99  Minn.  295, 
Supp.    1045.  109  N.  W,  402. 

50.  Cleveland,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  v.  53.  Missouri,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  of  Texas 
Louisville  Tin  &  Stove  Co.,  33  Ky.  v.  Tripis,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  117  S.  W. 
Law  Rep.  924,  111  S.  W.  358.  199. 

51.  Hanna  v.  Pitt  &  Scott,  121  In  an  action  by  a  consignee  against 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  420,  106  N.  Y.  a  carrier  for  damages  to  fruit  from 
Supp.  145.  defective  drain  pipes  in  a  refrigerator 


oG6 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


a  shipper  discovers  before  loading  or  the  departure  of  the  car  that 
it  is  not  suitable  for  carrying  perishable  goods,  he  is  not  thereby 
guilty  of  contributory  negligence,  or  does  not  assume  the  risk,  if 
he  cannot  relieve  himself  of  the  situation.^*  Though  a  shipper 
observed  the  condition  of  the  car  when  he  loaded  fruit  therein  as 
to  insufficient  refrigeration,  yet  if  he  called  the  attention  of  the 
agent  to  the  condition,  and  the  agent  directed  him  to  go  ahead 
and  load  the  fruit,  assuring  him  that  the  railroad  company  would 
furnish  the  ice,  the  company  would  be  liable.^^  Where  a  carrier 
furnishes  a  defective  car  for  shipment,  it  is  liable  for  injuries  to 
the  shipment  resulting  from  such  defect,  although  the  shipper  in- 
spected the  car  and  knew  of  the  defect.^^  Where  the  shippers  of 
fruit  undertook  to  supply  the  refrigerator  car  with  ice,  the  carrier 
had  a  right  to  assume,  except  as  facts  may  have  existed  that  put 
it  on  notice  to  the  contrary,  that  the  shippers  had  furnished  enough 
ice  to  keep  the  car  cool  until  a  delivery  to  the  consignee  could  be 
had  in  the  ordinary  course  of  business."  But  where  a  bill  of  lading 
for  the  shipment  of  fruit  provided  that  the  cars  should  be  iced  at 
G.  and  re-iced  as  often  as  necessary  thereafter,  the  fact  that  plain- 
tiffs discovered  that  the  cars  were  insufficiently  iced  before  their 
departure  did  not  impose  a  responsibility  on  plaintiffs  or  relieve 
defendant,  if  plaintiffs  had  no  opportunity  to  remedy  the  situa- 
tion, and  believed  that  the  fruit  would  reach  G.  without  injury.^^ 

car  used  by  plaintiff  for  storage  after  55.  Southern  Ry.   Go.  v.  Williams, 
the    relation    of    carrier    and    ware-  139  Ga.  357,  77  S.  E.  153. 
houseman   had   terminated,   where   it  56.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  O.  v.  Mar- 
appeared  that,  if  the  fruit  had  been  shall,  74  Ark.  597,  86  S.  W.  803. 
removed  from  the  oar,  it  would  have  57.  Chicago,   etc.,   Ry.   Co.   v.   Rey- 
spoiled  immediately  because  the  con-  man,  —  Ind.  — ,  73  N.  E.  587,  reVd 
signee  had  no  cold-storage  facilities,  166  Ind.  278,  76  N.  E.  970. 
the  consij^nee  would  not  be  negligent  58.  Johnson  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  Ry.  Co., 
in  failing"  to  do  so.     Id.  133  Mich.  596,  10  Detroit  Leg.  N.  324, 
54.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  of  Texas  95  N.  W.  724,  103  Am.  St.  Rep,  464. 
V.  McLean,    (Tex.  Civ.  App.)    118  S. 
W.  161. 


CONTRIBUTORY   NEGLIGENCE   OF    SHIPPER.  5,37 

§  7.  Goods  lost  because  of  defects  in  appliances  furnished  by 
shipper. 
Where  the  owner  of  a  hogshead  of  molasses  furnished  a  common 
carrier  with  skids  wherewith  to  unload  the  same  from  his  wagon, 
but  the  skids,  owing  to  a  latent  defect,  broke  under  the  weight  of 
the  hogshead,  and  the  contents  thereof  were  lost,  the  owner  could 
not  maintain  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  the  loss.°^ 

59.  Loveland  v.   Burke,    120  Mass. 
139,   21   Am.   Rep.   507. 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof. 

Section     1.  Presumptions  and  burden  of  proof  generally. 

2.  Presumption  as  to  state  of  goods  when  received. 

3.  Defense  of  loss  by  the  act  of  God. 

4.  Where  goods  lost  consist  of  several  kinds. 

5.  Where  liability  is  limited  by  special  contract. 

6.  Proof  of  loss  by  fire  under  contract  limiting  liability. 

7.  Where  carrier  is  merely  a  warehouseman. 

§  1.  Presumptions  and  burden  of  proof  generally. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods  the 
burden  rests  upon  the  plaintiff  to  show  by  affirmative  proof  the 
delivery  of  the  goods  to  the  carrier,  their  nature  and  condition, 
and  that  they  were  in  fact  in  good  order  when  received  by  the 
carrier.^  There  is  no  presumption  that  the  goods  were  in  good 
order  when  received  by  the  carrier.^  The  receipt  of  the  carrier  for 
the  goods  as  being  "  in  apparent  good  order  "  raises  no  presump- 
tion whatever  against  the  carrier  as  to  the  actual  condition  of  the 
goods  when  received,  and  does  not  relieve  the  plaintiff  of  the  bur- 
den of  showing  such  condition,  and  that  the  goods  were  in  fact  in 
good  order  when  received  by  the  carrier.    Such  words  in  a  receipt 

1.  Smith  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  C5o.,  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  28,  16  Am.  &  Eng. 

43   Barb.    (N.   Y.)    225,  aflFd.   41   N.  E.  Cas.  98. 

Y,  620;  Hoffberg  v.  Bumford,  88  Delivery  of  the  whole  of  a  consign- 
N.  Y.  Supp.  950;  Canfield  v.  Balti-  ment  may  be  presumed  from  the  de- 
more,  etc.,  P.  Co,  46  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  livery  of  a  part.  Union  Pacific  R.  Co. 
238;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Echols,  v.  Hepner,  3  Colo.  App.  313;  Savan- 
97  Ala.  556;  Reubens  v.  Ludgate  Hill  nah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Steininger,  84  Ga. 
Steamship  Co.,  20  N.  Y.  Supp.  481;  679. 

Wing   V.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    1  2.  Brooks  v.  Dinsmore,  3   St.  Rep. 

Hilt.    (N.   Y.)    235;    Peebles   v.   Bos-  (N.  Y.)    587;   Lake   Shore  Nitro-gly- 

ton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112  Mass.  498;  Mia-  cerine  Co.  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  75 

eouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Douglass,  2  Tex.  111.   394;    Marquette,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

(568) 


PKESUMPTIONS  AND  BURDEN  OF  PROOF. 


569 


bj  the  carrier  refer  only  to  the  outward  appearance  of  the  package.' 
The  burden  of  proof  is  also  on  the  plaintiff  to  show  by  affirmative 
evidence  non-delivery  or  a  failure  of  the  carrier  to  deliver  them 
at  their  destination  in  good  order.*  When  there  has  been  a  loss 
or  injury  of  goods  in  shipment  by  the  carrier,  such  proof  is  suffi- 
cient to  establish  a  prima  facie  case  against  the  carrier,  and,  in 
the  absence  of  a  contract  limiting  its  liability,  the  burden  of  proof 
is  then  upon  the  carrier  to  show  affirmatively  that  the  loss  or  in- 
jury resulted  from  a  cause  for  which  it  was  not  responsible,  such 
as  the  act  of  God  or  the  public  enemy ;  ^  or  that  the  shipment  was 


Kirkwood,  45  Mich.  51,  40  Am.  Rep. 
453.  See  Rice  v.  Indianapolis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  3  Mo.  App.  27.  Compare  Breed 
V.  Mitchell,  48  Ga.  533. 

3.  Thyll  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
03  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  513,  87  N.  Y. 
Supp.  345,  mod'g  84  N.  Y.  Supp.  175 ; 
Miller  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Oo.,  90 
N.  Y.  430,  43  Am.  Rep.  179;  Clark 
V.  Barnell,  12  How.  (U.  S.)  272,  13 
L.  Ed.  985;  Roth  v.  Hamburg- Ameri- 
can Packet  Co.,  59  N.  Y.  Super.  Ot. 
49;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Neel,  56 
Ark,  279;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v. 
Benjamin,  63  HI.  283;  Burwell  v. 
Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  N.  C.  451; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R  Co.  ▼.  Holder,  10  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  223. 

4.  Blum  V.  Monahan,  36  Misc.  Rep, 
(N.   Y.)    179,    73   N.   Y.   Supp.    162; 

Roberts  v.  Chittenden,  88  N.  Y.  33; 
Mouton  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
(Ala.)  29  So.  601;  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V,  Dickinson,  74  111  249;  Chica- 
go, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Provine,  61  Miss. 
288;  Day  v.  Ridley,  16  Vt.  48;  Hot 
Springs  R.  Oo.  v.  Hudgins,  42  Ark. 
485,  plaintiff  ia  relieved  from  this 
necessity  where  the  carrier  pleads 
non-receipt  of  the  goods;  Ingledew  v. 
Northern  R.  Co.,  7  Gray    (Mass.)    86 


Armstrong  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
62  Mo.  App.  639;  Galveston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Gildea,  2  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Gas.,  § 
271. 

5.  N.  T. — Park  v.  Preston,  108  N. 
Y.  434;  Bowden  v.  Fargo,  2  Misc. 
Rep.  (N.Y.)  551;  Colt  v.  McMechen. 
6  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  160,  5  Am.  Dec. 
200;  Campe  v.  Weir,  28  Misc.  Rep. 
(N.  Y.)  243,  58  N.  Y.  Supp.  1082; 
Reiser  v.  Metropolitan  Express  Co., 
91  N.  Y.  Supp.  170;  Rind  v.  Stake,  28 
Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  177,  59  N.  Y. 
Supp.  42;  Lockwood  v.  Manhattan, 
etc.,  Warehouse  Co.,  28  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)  68,  50  N.  Y.  Supp.  974;  Westcott 
V.  Fargo,  63  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  349; 
Canfield  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 
N.  Y.  532,  45  Am.  Rep.  258,  16  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  162,  holding  "  the  law 
to  have  been  settled  beyond  contro- 
versy that  proof  of  the  non-delivery 
of  property  by  a  bailee  upon  demand, 
unexplained,  makes  out  a  prima  facie 
case  of  negligence  against  such  bailee 
in  the  care  and  custody  of  the  thing 
bailed,  and,  in  the  absence  of  any  evi- 
dence on  his  part,  excusing  such  non- 
delivery, presents  a  question  of  fact 
as  to  the  negligence  of  the  bailee  for 
the  consideration  of  the  jnrv.    Steers 


57U 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


such  that  it  was  only  liable  for  negligence,  as  that  the  goods  were 


V.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Steamship  Co.,  57 
N.  Y.  6,  15  Am.  Rep.  453;  Magnin  v. 
Dinsmore,  56  N.  Y.  168;  Burnell  v. 
New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  185, 
6  Am.  Rep.  61;  Fairfax  v.  New- 
York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  N.  Y. 
11;  Claflin  v.  Meyer,  75  N.  Y.  260, 
31  Am.  Rep.  467;  Schmidt  v.  Blood, 
9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  268,  24  Am.  Dec. 
143;  Moore  v.  Evans,  14  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  524.  The  principle  upon  which 
this  rule  is  founded  embraces  as  well 
the  case  of  a  partial  as  of  a  total  fail- 
ure to  deliver  the  subject  of  a  bail- 
ment." See  also  Place  v.  Union  Ex- 
press Co.,  2  Hilt  (N.  Y.)  19,  apply- 
ing the  rule  in  an  action  for  delay  in 
delivery. 

U.  S. — Gumming  v.  Barracouta,  40 
Fed.  498;  Western  Mfg.  Co.  v.  The 
Guiding  Star,  37  Fed.  641;  Wood- 
ward v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  1  Bis9. 
(U.  S.)  403;  The  Samuel  E.  Spring, 
29    Fed.   397. 

Ala. — Mouton  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  (Ala.)  29  So.  602;  Richmond, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grousdale,  99  Ala.  389; 
Alabama  G.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Little,  71 
Ala.  611;  South,  etc.,  Alabama  R.  Co. 
V.  Wood,   66  Ala.  167. 

Cal. — Wilson  v.  California  Cent.  R. 
Co.,   94   Cal.   166. 

Conn. — ^Mears  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  (Conn.)  52  Atl.  610,  56  L.  R.  A. 
884;  Boies  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
37  Conn.  272. 

Fla. — Savannah,  etc.,  E.  Oo.  v. 
Harris,    26    Fla.    148. 

Oa. — Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Oo.  v.  Ree- 
ner,  93  G-a.  808;  Purcell  v.  Southern 
Express  Co.,  34  Ga.  315;  Central  R. 
Co.  V.  Hasselkus,  91  Ga.  382. 


III. — Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Oo.  v. 
Radbourne,  53  111.  App.  203. 

Ind. — Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Live- 
right,   14  Ind.  App.   518. 

Iowa. — Winne  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R 
Co.,  31  Iowa,  583;  Angle  v.  Missisip- 
pi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Iowa,  555;  St. 
Clair  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 
Iowa,   304,  delay  in  delivery. 

La. — Chapman  v.  New  Orleans,  etc., 
R.  Oo.,  21  La.  Ann.  224;  Tardos  v. 
Toulon,  14  La.  Ann.  439. 

Me. — Dow  V.  Portland  Steam  Pack- 
et Co.,  84  Me.  490;  Bennett  v.  Amer- 
ican Express  Co.,  83  Me.  236;  Little 
V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Me.  239. 

Mass. — Alden  v.  Pearson,  3  Gray 
(Mass.)    342. 

Minn. — Boehl  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  44  Minn.  191;  Hull  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Minn.  510;  Smith  v. 
St.  Paul  City  R.  Co.,  32  Minn.  1. 

Mo. — George  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  57  Mo.  App.  358;  Heck  v.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  So.,  51  Mo.  App.  532; 
Hance  v.  Pacific  Express  Co.,  48  Mo. 
App.  179;  Davis  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  89  Mo.  340;  Bud<iy  v.  Wabash, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Mo.  App.  206;  Green 
V.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Mo. 
556;  Degge  v.  American  Express  Co., 
2  Mo.  App.  Rep.  904. 

N.  ^.— Hall  v.  Cheney,  36  N.  H. 
26. 

N.  7.— Hunt  V.  Morris,  12  N.  J.  L. 
175. 

Pa. — Buck  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 
150  Pa.  St.  170;  Grogan  v.  Adams 
Express  Co.,  114  Pa.  St.  523;  Adams 
Express  Oo.  v.  Holmes,  (Pa.)  9  Atl. 
166;  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Eby,  (Pa.)   12  Atl.  482;  Pennsylvania 


PRESUMPTIONS  AND  BURDEN   Ob'  PROOF. 


571 


perisliable  or  were  live  stock.®  There  is  no  presumption  of  negli- 
gence arising  from  the  mere  fact  of  loss  or  injury,  and  when  the 
carrier  has  made  such  proofs  as  to  the  cause  of  the  loss  or  injury, 
the  burden  is  on  the  plaintiff  to  show  that  the  carrier's  negligence 
was  the  proximate  cause  of  the  lossJ  Biit  when  property  has 
been  delivered  in  good  condition  to  a  carrier,  and  it  has  been 
damaged  while  in  possession  of  the  carrier,  nothing  else  appearing, 
the  presumption  is  that  there  has  been  negligence  on  the  part  of 
the  carrier,  and  the  burden  is  on  the  carrier  to  remove  such  pre- 


R.  Co.  V.  Miller,  87  Pa.  St.  395,  Em. 
pire  Transp.  Co.  v.  Wamsutta  Oil 
Refining,  etc.,  Co.,  63  Pa.  St.  14; 
Phoenix  Clay  Pot  Works  v.  Pitts- 
burgh, etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  Pa.  St.  284; 
American  Express  Co.  v.  Sands,  55 
Pa.  St.  140;  Clark  v.  Spencer,  10 
Watts  (Pa.)   335. 

8.  C. — Johnstone  v.  Richmond,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  39  S.  C.  55 ;  Wardlaw  v.  South 
Carolina  R.  Co.,  11  Rich.  L.  (S.  C.) 
337;  Ewart  v.  Street,  2  Bailey  L.  (S. 
C.)    157. 

Tenn. — Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Stone  &,  Haslett,  (Tenn.)  79  S.  W. 
1031;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wynn. 
S8  Tenn.  320;  ilerchants  Despatch 
Transp.  Oo.  v.  Bloch,  86  Tenn.  392; 
Tumey  v.  Wilson,  7  Yerg.  (Tenn.) 
340;  Deming  v.  Merchants  Cotton 
Press,   etc.,  90  Tenn.   306. 

Tex. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Martin,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  35  S.  W. 
28;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Par- 
mer, (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  30  S.  W.  1109; 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Scott,  4  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  76;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ryan  v.  ]\Ii?souri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Tex. 
13;    Missouri    Tac.   R.    Co.   v.   China 

Mfg.  Co..  :n  Tc\.  ?.r,. 


Va. — Murphy  v.  Staton,  3  Munf. 
(Va.)   239. 

Ft.— Mann  v.  Birchard,  40  Vt.  326, 
delay  in  delivery. 

Wis.  —  Browning  v.  Goodrich 
Transp.  Co.,  78  Wis.  391;  Black  v. 
Goodrich  Transp.  Co.,  55  Wis.  319; 
Kirst  V.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46 
Wis.  489. 

Eng. — Riley  v.  Home,  5  Bing.  217, 
15  E.  C.  L.  422. 

Can. — Henry  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R. 
Co.,   1  Manitoba  210. 

6.  See  Carriers  of  Live  Stock,  chap. 
21. 

7  The  Guiding  Star,  53  Fed.  936; 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hazen,  84 
111.  36;  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Sherwood,  132  Ind.  129;  Pittsburgh, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hollowell,  65  Ind.  188 ; 
Jordan  v.  American  Express  Co.,  86 
Me.  225;  E.  0.  Stannard  Milling  Co. 
V.  White  Line  Cent.  Transit  Co.,  122 
Mo.  258;  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Crawford,  24  Ohio  St.  631;  Buck  v. 
Pennsylvania  R..  Co.,  150  Pa.  St.  170; 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Raiordon,  119 
Pa.  St.  577;  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Stewart,  13  Lea   (Tenn.)    432. 


572  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

sumption.^  Where,  in  an  action  against  a  railroad  company  tx> 
recover  for  a  case  of  plate  glass,  broken  while  in  its  possession  a3 
a  carrier,  the  evidence  disclosed  that  the  case,  witli  several  other 
like  cases,  was  delivered  to  defendant  for  transportation,  in  good 
order,  and  that  the  other  cases  were  delivered  by  the  carrier  in 
good  order,  as  received,  it  will  be  presumed  that  it  was  negligently 
handled  by  defendant.®  Negligence  on  the  part  of  a  carrier  under- 
taking to  transport  heavy  castings  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  they 
were  shipped  in  good  order  and  were  found  cracked  upon  delivery, 
and  the  carrier,  to  avoid  liability,  has  the  burden  of  showing  cause 
for  the  fracture  which  will  overcome  tlie  presumptive  case  raised 
against  him.'"  The  destruction  of  goods  while  in  the  hands  of  an 
express  company  by  the  derailment  and  burning  of  the  car  on 
which  they  were  shipped  gives  rise  to  a  presumption  of  negli- 
gence." But  under  a  count  asking  recovery  against  a  railroad 
company  as  a  voluntary  bailee  of  goods  which  were  destroyed  be- 
fore delivery  to  the  consignee,  the  burden  of  proof  was  on  the 
plaintiff  to  show  the  negligence  averred.^^  Where  a  carrier,  in- 
stead of  delivering  a  trunk  at  the  port  as  required  by  its  contract, 
without  giving  the  owner  an  opportunity  to  examine  or  take  charge 

8.  Pennsylvania  R.  Ck>.  v.  Naive,  Grieve  v.  Illinois  C.  R.  Co.,  104 
(Tenn.)   79  S.  W.  124.  Iowa    659,     74    N.     W.     192;     Terre 

9.  HutkoflF  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sherwood,  132 
29  Misc.  R&p.  (N.  Y.)  770,  61  N.  Y.  Ind.  129,  17  L.  R.  A.  339;  Hinton  v. 
Supp.  254.  Citing  Campe  v.  Weir,  Eastern  R.  Co.,  (Minn.)  75  N.  W. 
28  Misc.  Rep.  (N,  Y.)  243,  58  N.  Y.  373;  Hull  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 
Supp.  1082;  Roth  v.  Hamburg  Amer.  Minn.  510,  5  L.  R.  A.  587;  S'hriver  v. 
Packet  Co.,  12  N.  Y.  Supp.  462;  Trim-  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Minn, 
ble  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  506;  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Little, 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  403,  412,  57  N.  71  Ala.  611,  12  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
Y.  Supip.  437.  37;  Rintoul  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

10.  Hudson  River  Lighterage  Co.  17  Fed.  905,  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Oas. 
v.    Wheeler   Condenser   &   E.    Co.,   93      144. 

Fed.  374.     Citing  Phoenix  Pot  Works  11.  Powers  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Wells, 

V.   Pittsburgh,    etc.,   R.   Co.,    139   Pa.  Fargo  &  Co.,   (Minn.)   100  N.  W.  735. 

St.   284;   Ketchum  v.  American  Mer-  12.  Frederick  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 

chants  Union  Exp.  Co.,  52  Mo.  390;  Co.,  133  Ala.  486,   31   So.  968. 


PRESUMPTIONS  AND  BURDEN  OF  PROOF.        573 

of  it  for  tlie  purpose  af  entry,  sent  it  to  the  custom  house,  and, 
after  entry  and  release,  forwarded  it  by  an  express  company  to 
the  owner's  address,  it  had  the  burden  of  showing  that  a  loss  there^ 
from  did  not  occur  while  it  was  in  its  actual  custody/^  It  may  be 
presumed  in  case  of  a  decay  in  perishable  goods  in  transit  by  rea- 
son of  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  carrier,  that  such  negligpnce 
occurred  while  the  goods  were  in  the  custody  of  the  last  carrier. 
The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  carrier  to  show  that  a  shipper  as- 
sented to  its  billing  goods  to  a  place  other  that  that  specified  in 
the  shipping  receipt.^"  The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  plaintiff  to 
show  that  defendant  is  a  common  carrier.^^  Where  plaintiff  in  an 
action  against  a  railroad  company  to  recover  for  a  loss  of  goods 
in  shipment,  introduces  evidence  which  tends  strongly  to  show 
inferentially  that  defendant  managed  and  controlled  the  line  of 
road  upon  which  the  loss  occurred,  although  it  was  owned  by  a 
separate  corporation,  such  as  that  the  managing  officers  of  the  two 
companies  were  the  same,  that  defendant  held  itself  out  to  the 
public  as  operating  the  line  by  advertising  it  as  a  part  of  its  system, 
etc.,  and  defendant,  although  having  it  within  its  power,  fails  to 
produce  evidence  to  show  the  actual  relation  between  the  two  com- 
panies, it  is  a  reasonable  presumption  that  such  evidence  would 
support  plaintiff's  contention,  and  the  jury  is  justified  in  deter- 
mining the  issue  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff." 

§  2.  Presumption  as  to  state  of  goods  when  received. 

If  goods  are  delivered  by  a  carrier  in  a  damaged  state,  it  will 

13.  Fasy  v.  International  Nav.  Co.,  Morrison  v.  Davis,  20  Pa.  St,  171; 
177  N.  Y.  591,  70  N.  E.  1098,  affg.  Doty  v.  Strong,  1  Pin.  (Wis.)  313; 
77  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  469,  79  N.  Y.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v,  Douglass,  2 
Supp.  1103.  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Oas,,  §  28,     See  Den- 

14.  Densmore  Commission  Co.  v.  ver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v,  Cahill,  8  Colo. 
Dnluth,  etc,,  R.  Co,,  101  Wis.  563,  77  App.  158,  allegation  and  proof  not 
N.  W.  904.  necessary   where   railroads   are   made 

15.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R,  Co,  v.  C.  &  common  carriers  by  statute, 

A.  Potts  &  Co,,   (Ind,  App.)   71  N.  E.  17.  Pennsylvania  R.   Co.  v,   Anoka 

6S5.  Nat.  Bank,  108  Fed.  482,  47  C.  C.  A. 

16.  "Ringgold  v.  Haven.  1   Cal.  108      454. 


574  THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 

not  be  liable  unless  it  is  shown  that  they  were  in  a  different  state 
when  they  were  received  by  it.  The  presumption,  if  any,  would 
be  that  the  goods  were  received  in  the  same  condition  as  when  they 
were  delivered.^^  The  burden  of  proof  is,  as  we  have  seen^  on  the 
shipper  to  show  a  delivery  to  the  carrier  in  good  order.^®  It  has, 
however,  been  held  that  the  burden  is  on  the  carrier  to  show  as  a 
defence  that,  when  delivered  to  it,  the  goods  were  in  a  damaged 
condition,  or  that  the  injury  occurred  from  a  cause  for  which  it 
was  not  liable.^" 

§  3.  Defense  of  loss  by  act  of  God. 

The  carrier  is  always  liable  for  a  loss  or  injury  resulting  from 
its  own  negligence ;  and  when  that  intervenes,  it  cannot  discharge 
itself  by  showing  that  it  was  occasioned  by  one  of  those  occurrences 
which  are  termed  the  act  of  God.  If  by  its  negligence,  property 
committed  to  it  is  brought  under  the  operation  of  natural  causes 
that  work  its  destruction,  or  is  exposed  to  such  cause  of  loss,  it  is 
responsible.  So  also,  if  but  for  its  neglect  the  loss  or  injury  would 
have  been  avoided.  The  rule  is  the  same  in  reference  to  an  act  of 
the  public  enemy.  The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  carrier,  therefore, 
to  show  not  only  that  an  act  of  God  or  of  the  public  enemy  was  the 
immediate  and  proximate  cause  of  the  loss  or  injury,  but  also  that 
it  actually  exercised  the  requisite  care  and  diligence  to  protect  the 
goods  from  the  operation  of  such  causes.^^  But  it  has  been  held 
that  where  it  is  shown  that  a  loss  of  goods  in  the  possession  of  a 

18.  Goodman  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Contra  Costa,  27  Cal.  435;  Jack- 
Co.,  22  Or.  14,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  son  v.  Sacramento  Val.  R.  Co.,  23 
87;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Breed-  Cal.  269;  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Hasselkus, 
ing,  4  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §   154.  91  Ga.  382;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

19.  See  §  1,  ante.  White,   88   Ga.   805;    Van   Winkle   v. 

20.  Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  38  Ga.  33; 
Moore,  51  Ala.  394.  Davis  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Mo. 

21.  Michaels  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  340;  Leonard  v.  Hendrickson,  18  Pa. 
R.  Co.,  30  N.  Y.  564,  86  Am.  Dec.  St.  40;  Bell  v.  Reed,  4  Binn.  (Pa.) 
415;    Montgomery,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.  127,  5  Am.  Dec.  398. 

Moore,  51  Ala.  394;  Agnewv.  Stea^mer 


PRESUMPTIONS  AND  BURDEN  OF  PROOF.        575 

carrier  was  due  to  an  overpowering  cause,  tlie  burden  is  on  the 
opposite  party  to  establish  the  negligence  of  the  carrier.^^ 

§  4.  Where  goods  lost  consist  of  several  kinds. 

Where  a  shipment  consists  of  several  kinds  of  goods  of  different 
values,  a  portion  of  which  is  lost,  and  the  proof  is  not  definite  as 
to  the  proportion  of  each  that  was  shipped,  there  is  no  legal  pre- 
sumption in  such  a  case,  but  it  is  purely  a  question  of  fact,  from 
the  evidence,  as  to  which  kind  of  goods  were  destroyed,  the  burden 
of  proof  being  on  the  plaintiff,  and  an  instruction  that  the  pre- 
sumption is  that  all  goods  lost,  the  kind  and  value  of  which  is  not 
proven,  must  have  been  those  of  the  least  value,  is  erroneous.^ 
The  plaintiff  has  the  burden  of  proof  to  establish  the  value  of  goods 
lost,  and  in  the  absence  of  such  proof  a  judgment  in  his  favor 
cannot  stand.^ 

§  5.  Where  liability  is  limited  by  special  contract. 

Where  goods  are  received  for  transportation  by  a  common  car- 
rier, under  a  special  contract  by  which  its  common  law  liability  as 
insurer  is  limited,  it  is  held  by  the  weight  of  authority  that,  the 
carrier  having  proved  the  loss  to  have  occurred  by  reason  of  the 
excepted  cause,  it  then  devolves  upon  the  shipper  to  establish  the 
negligence  of  the  carrier,  failing  in  which  he  cannot  recover.^^    On 

22.  Jones  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  French  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 
Co.,    (Minn.)   97  N.  W.  893.  Keyes    (N.  Y.)    108;   Sutro  v.  Fargo, 

23.  Lake  Shore  Nitro-glycerine  Co.      41  N.  Y.  Super.  Ot.  331. 

V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  75  111.  394.  U.  8.— The  Jefferson,  31  Fed.  489; 

24.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc-  The  New  Orleans,  26  Fed.  44;  CI. irk 
Glossom,  1  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  v.  Barnwell,  12  How.  (U.  S.)  272; 
224.  Western  Transp.  Co.  v.  Downer,   11 

25.  N.  Y.— Canfield  v.  Baltimore,  Wall.  (U.  S.)  133;  Wertheimer  v. 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  N.  Y.  532,  45  Am.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  17  Blatchf.  (U. 
Rep.  268;  Whitworth  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  S.)  421;  Van  Schaack  y.  Northern 
87  N.  Y.  413;  Steers  v.  Liverpool,  Transp.  Co.,  3  Biss.  (U.  S.)  394; 
etc..  Steamship  Co.,  57  N.  Y.  1,  15  Speyer  v.  The  Mary  Belle  Roberts,  3 
Am.  Rep.  458;   Cochran  v.  Dinsmore,  Sawy.    (U.  S.)    1. 

49  N.  Y.  249;  Lamb  v.  Camden,  etc.  Atrk. — Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.   Co.   v. 

Co.,  46  N.  Y.  271,  7  Am.  Rep.  327;       Harper,    44    Ark.    208;    Little    Rock, 


676 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


the  other  hand,  it  is  held  in  a  number  of  jurisdictions  that,  under 
such  contracts,  the  burden  is  upon  the  carrier  to  show  not  only 
that  the  loss  was  by  the  excepted  cause,  but  also  that  it  itself  was 
free  from  fault.^^     The  reason  why  the  carrier  should  not  be 


etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Corcoran,  40  Ark.  375; 
Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Talbot,  39 
Ark.   523. 

Iowa. — Mitchell  v.  United  States 
Express  Co.,  46  Iowa,  214. 

Ind. — Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Forsythe,  4  Ind.  App.  326. 

Kan. — Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Rey- 
nolds, 8  Kan.  623;  Kallman  v.  United 
States  Express  Co.,  3  Kan.  205. 

La. — New  Orleans  ISIut.  Int.  Co.  v. 
New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  La.  Ann. 
302;  Kelham  v.  Steamship  Kensing- 
ton, 24  La.  Ann.  100;  Kirk  v.  Fol- 
som,  23  La.  Ann.  584;  Price  v.  The 
Uriel,  10  La.  Ann.  413. 

Me. — Sager  v.  Portsmouth,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  31  Me.  223. 

Md. — Bankard  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  34  Md.  197. 

Mo. — Otis  Co.  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  112  Mo.  622;  Read  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Mo.  199;  Harvey  v. 
Terre  Haute,  etc.,  74  Mo.  538;  Hance 
V,  Pacific  Express  Co.,  48  Mo.  App. 
179;  Witting  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  28  Mo.  App.  103;  Heil  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Mo.  App.  363. 

ii.  C. — ^Smith  V.  North  Carolina  R. 
Co.,  64  N.  C.  235. 

Pa. — Buck  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 
150  Pa.  St.  170;  Pennsylvania  R.  Co. 
V.  Raiordon,  119  Pa.  St.  577;  Col- 
ton  V.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Pa. 
St.  211;  Patterson  v.  Clyde,  67  Pa. 
St.  505;  Farnham  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  55  Pa.  St.  53. 

Plaintiff  in  an  action  against  a 
railroad  company  for  injury  to  per- 


ishable property  by  heating  has  the 
burden  of  proving  negligence,  or  cir- 
cumstances from  which  negligence 
may  be  reasonably  inferred,  where  the 
contract  of  skipment  releases  the  lia- 
bility from  any  causes  incident  to 
transportation,  such  as  "heating," 
not  directly  traceable  to  the  negli- 
gence of  its  servants.  Davenport  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  10  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.  47. 

Te7in. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Manchester  Mills,  88  Tenn.  656, 

Eng. — Harris  v.  Packwood,  3 
Taunt.  264. 

26.  Ala. — McCarthy  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Ala.  193;  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Touart,  97  Ala.  514; 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
ston, 75  Ala.  596;  Alabama  G.  S.  R. 
Co.  V.  Little,  71  Ala.  611;  Grey  v. 
Mobile  Co.,  55  Ala.  387;  Steele  v. 
Townsend,  37  Ala.  247. 

Conn. — Harper  v.  Railroad  Co.,  37 
Conn.  272. 

Ga. — Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
White,  88  Ga.  805;  Columbus,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Kennedy,  78  Ga.  646;  Berry 
V.  Cooper,  28  Ga.  543. 

/H.— Dunspeth  v.  Wade,  3  111.  285. 

Minn. — Shea  v.  Minneapolis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  63  Minn.  228;  Hull  v.  Chica- 
go, etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Minn.  510;  Shriver 
V.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Minn. 
506. 

Miss. — Southern  Express  Co.  v. 
Seide,  67  Miss.  613;  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.   v.   Moss,    60   Miss.   1003. 

Ohio. — Pennsvlvania   Co.   v.   Yoder, 


PEESUMPTIOJSS  AND  BURDEN  OF  PROOF. 


577 


required  to  prove  the  absence  of  negligence  on  its  part  was  in 
some  cases  stated  to  be  that  the  special  agreement  relieves  the 
carrier  from  all  liability,  except  that  of  a  bailee  for  hire/^  but 
that  ground  has  been  held  untenable  by  subsequent  cases.^  It  is 
now  generally  put  upon  the  ground  that  to  require  it  would  limit 
the  restriction  and  destroy  its  chief  purpose  and,  in  effect,  amount 
to  holding  that  the  carrier  might  not  limit  its  liability,  by  prac- 
tically casting  upon  it  the  burden  of  proof  in  every  case."^  On 
the  other  hand  it  is  claimed  that  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  prove 
the  absence  of  negligence  on  its  part  arises  from  the  terms  of  the 
contract,  from  the  character  of  its  occupation,  and  from  the  rule 
of  evidence  requiring  the  facts,  even  of  a  negative  averment,  to 
be  proved  by  the  party  within  whose  knowledge  they  peculiarly 
lie.^**  The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  carrier  to  show  the  special 
contract  and  that  the  loss  was  one  within  the  exemptions  of  its 
provisions.^ 


25  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  R.  32 ;  United  States 
Express  Co.  v.  Blackman,  38  Ohio  St. 
144;  Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Lockwood,  28 
Ohio  St.  358;  Gaines  v.  Union 
Tiansp.,  etc.,  Co.,  28  Ohio  St.  418; 
Union  Express  Co.  v.  Graham,  26  Ohio 
St.  595;  Graham  v.  Davis,  4  Ohio  St. 
362;  Fatman  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  2  Disney  (Ohio),  248;  Union 
Mut.  Ins.  Co.  V.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  1  Di.^ney   (Ohio)   480. 

iS.  C. — Johnstone  v.  Richmond,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  39  S.  C.  55;  Wallingford  v, 
Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  S.  C.  253; 
Baker  v.  Brinson,  9  Rich.  L.  (S.  C.) 
201;  Swindler  v.  Hilliard,  2  Rich.  L. 
(S.   C.)    286. 

Tex. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  China 
Mfg.  Co.,  79  Tex.  26;  Ryan  v.  Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Tex.  13;  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.)  35  S.  W.  28. 

37 


W.  Va. — Brown  v.  Adams  Express 
Co.,  15  W.  Va.  812. 

27.  Lamb  v.  Ca,mden,  etc.,  Co.,  46 
N.  Y.  271;  York  Co.  v.  Central  Rail- 
road,  3   Wall.    (U.   S.)    107. 

28.  Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Lockwood,  SS 
Ohio   St.   358. 

29.  Patterson  v.  Clyde,  67  Pa.  St. 
505;  Phoenix  Clay  Pot  Works  v. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  Pa.  St. 
284;  New  Jersey  St<?ara  Nav.  Co.  v. 
Merchants  Bank,  6  How.  (U.  S.)   384. 

30.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moss,  60 
Miss.  1003;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
White,  88  Ga.  805;  1  Greenleaf  on 
Ev.    (14th  Ed.),  §  79. 

31.  U.  8. — Hooper  v.  Rathbone, 
Taney's  Dec.  (U.  S.)  519;  Western 
R.  Co.  V.  Harwell,  91  Ala.  340;  West- 
ern Transip.  Co.  v.  Newhall,  24  III. 
466:  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Sherwood,   132   Ind.   129;    Fillebrown 


678 


THE  LAW  OF  CARRIERS. 


§  6.  Proof  of  loss  by  fire  under  contract  limiting  liability. 

A  shipper  or  consignee  of  goods  under  a  contract  relieving  the 
carrier  from  liability  for  loss  or  damage  bv  fire  from  any  cause  to 
the  property  in  transit,  or  in  deposit  or  places  of  trans-shipment, 
or  at  depots  or  landings  at  point  of  delivery,  has  the  burden  of 
proving  that  the  loss  or  damage  by  fire  was  the  result  of  the 
carrier's  negligence  and  of  showing  facts  taking  the  case  out  of 
the  operation  of  the  exemption  clause.  The  occurrence  of  a  fire 
while  the  goods  were  in  the  possession  of  the  carrier  does  not 
alone  justify  the  inference  of  negligence.  In  the  absence  of  all 
explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  fire,  or  of  evidence  tending  to  show 
that  it  was  in  the  power  of  the  carrier  to  have  made  such  explana- 
tion, or  that,  by  the  exercise  of  reasonable  care,  the  fire  would 
not  have  occurred,  no  presumption  of  negligence  is  raised  so  as  to 
justify  the  submission  of  the  question  to  the  jury.^^     In  some 


V.  Orand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  55  Mo.  462; 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brady,  32 
Md.  333;  McMillan  v.  Michigan 
Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Mich.  79; 
Lindsley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36 
Minn.  539;  Johnson  v.  Alabama,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  69  Miss.  191;  Wolf  v.  Ameri- 
can Express  Co.,  43  Mo.  421;  United 
States  Express  Co.  v.  Backman,  28 
Ohio  St.  144;  Schaeffer  v.  Philadel- 
phia, etc.,  R.  Co.,  168  Pa.  St.  209; 
Slater  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  29 
S.  C.  96;  Falvey  v.  Northern  Transp. 
Co.,  15  Wis.  129. 

32.  Draper  v.  Delaware,  etc..  Canal 
Co.,  118  N.  Y.  123;  Van  Akin  v. 
Erie  R.  Co.,  92  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
23,  87  N.  Y.  Supp.  871;  Piatt  v. 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  N.  Y. 
358,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  517; 
Whitworth  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  87  N.  Y. 
413,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  352;  Cald- 
well V.  New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co., 
57  N.  Y.  282;  Germania  Fire  Ins. 
■Co.  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   72  N. 


Y.  90,  28  Am.  Rep.  113;  Lamb  V. 
Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  N.  Y.  271,  7 
Am.  Rep.  337;  Cochran  v.  Dinsmore, 
49  N.  Y.  249;  Sutro  v.  Fargo,  41  N. 
Y.  Super.  Ct.  '241;  Insurance  Co.  of 
N.  A.  V.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  152 
Ind.  333,  4  Chic.  L.  J.  Wkly.  201,  1 
Repr.  819,  53  N.  E.  382;  Clark  v. 
Barnwell,  12  How.  (U.  S.)  272,  13 
L.  Ed.  985;  Western  Transp.  Co.  t. 
Bovmev,  11  Wall.  (U.  S.)  129,  20 
L.  Ed.  160;  Farnham  v.  Camden,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  55  Pa.  St.  53;  Colton  v. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Pa.  St.  211; 
Patterson  v.  Clyde,  67  Pa.  St.  500; 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Raiordon, 
119  Pa.  St.  577;  Buck  v.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.,  150  Pa.  St.  170,  24 
Atl.  678;  Smith  v.  American  Ex- 
press Co.,  108  Mich.  572,  66  N.  W. 
479;  Read  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
60  Mo.  199;  Kallman  v.  United 
States  Express  Co.,  3  Kan.  205;  New 
Orleans  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  v.  New  Orleans, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  La.  Ann.  302;  Wilson 


PRESUIVIPTIONS  AND  BURDEN  OF  PROOF. 


579 


jurisdictions  the  contrary  doctrine  is  held  that  the  burden  is  on 
the  carrier  to  show  absence  of  negligence  in  case  of  loss  or  injury 
from  a  cause  within  the  contract  provision  for  exemption.^^ 

§  7.  When  carrier  is  merely  a  warehouseman. 

Where  the  carrier's  responsibility  is  that  of  a  warehouseman 
merely,  it  is  liable  only  for  losses  caused  by  its  negligence,  and 
mere  proof  of  loss  or  injury  is  not  sufficient  to  render  it  liable. 
For  example,  if  the  plaintiff  in  an  action  against  a  railroad  com- 
pany to  recover  the  value  of  goods  deposited  in  its  depot,  and 
alleged  to  have  been  lost  through  its  neglect,  proves  simply  that  the 
goods  were  stolen  from  the  depot,  and  fails  to  offer  any  evidence 


V.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  62  Cal.  164, 
7  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  400;  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Manchester  Mills, 
88  Penn.  653,  14  S.  W.  314;  Sager  v. 
Portsmouth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Me.  228, 
50  Am.  Dec.  659;  Mitchell  v.  United 
States  Express  Co.,  46  Iowa,  214; 
Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Reynolds,  8 
Kan.  623;  Smith  v.  North  Carolina 
R.  Co.,  64  N.  C.  235;  Little  Rock, 
etc.,  R.  Oo.  V.  Talbot,  39  Ark.  523; 
Harris  v.  Packwood,  3  Taunt.  264; 
Muddle  V.  Stride,  9  Car.  &  P.  3S0. 

33.  Hinton  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  72 
Minn.  339,  75  N.  W.  373,  11  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  N.  S.  125;  Shea  v. 
Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Minn. 
228,  65  N.  W.  458;  Southard  v.  Min- 
neapolis, etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Minn.  392, 
62  N.  W.  442,  619;  Hull  v,  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Minn.  510,  5  L.  R.  A. 
587,  43  N.  W.  391;  Newport  News, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Holmes,  14  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  853;  New^berger  Cotton  Co.  v. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  75  Miss.  303, 
23  So.  186;  Mitchell  v.  Carolina  0. 
R.  Co.,  124  N.  C.  236,  44  L.  R.  A. 
515,  32  S.  E.  671;  Graham  v.  Davis, 
4    Ohio   St.    362,    62   Am.    Dec.    285; 


Union  Express  Co.  v.  Graham,  26 
Ohio  St.  595;  United  States  Ex- 
press Co.  V.  Bachman,  28  Ohio  St. 
144;  Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Lockwood,  28 
Ohio  St.  358;  Gaines  v.  Union 
Transp.  Ins.  Co.,  28  Ohio  St.  418; 
Wallingford  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
26  S.  C.  258,  2  S.  E.  19;  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Payne,  15  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
58,  38  S.  W.  366;  Galveston,  etc.,  R. 
Oo.  V.  Efron,  (Tex.  Oiv.  App.)  38 
S.  W.  639;  Ryan  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  65  Tex.  13,  57  Am.  Reip.  589; 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Oo.  v.  China  Mfg. 
Co.,  79  Tex.  26,  14  S.  W.  785;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Zimmerman,  81  Tex. 
605;  Wardlaw  v.  South  Carolina  R. 
Co.,  11  Rich.  L.  (S.  C.)  337;  The 
Isaac  Reed,  82  Fed.  566;  Th«  Ken- 
sington, 88  Fed.  331;  Mackenzie  v. 
Cox,  9  C.  P.  632,  38  E.  C.  L.  263; 
Ix)uisvJlle,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cowherd, 
120  Ala.  51,  23  So,  793 ;  Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Bath,  17  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
697,  44  S.  W.  595;  Selma,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  United  States,  139  U.  S.  560, 
35  L.  Ed.  266;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Moss,  60  Minn.  1003,  45  Am.  Rep. 
428. 


580  THE  LAW  OF  CAEPJERS. 

of  a  want  of  ordinarj  care  on  the  part  of  the  company,  the  court 
may  properly  rule  that  the  evidence  in  insufficient  to  maintain 
the  action.^^  A  prima  facie  case  of  negligence  is  made  out  against 
a  warehouseman  who  refuses  to  deliver  property  stored  with  him, 
upon  proof  of  demand  and  refusal.  Upon  such  proof  alone,  the 
burden  is  on  him  to  account  for  the  property,  otherwise  he  shall  be 
deemed  to  have  converted  it  to  his  own  use."^  But  if  it  appears 
that  the  property,  when  demanded,  had  been  consumed  by  fire,  the 
burden  of  proof  is  then  on  the  bailor  to  show  that  the  fire  was  the 
result  of  the  negligence  of  the  warehouseman."'' 

34.  Lamb  v.  Western  R.  Corp.,  7  v.  Hai-tford,  etc.,  R.  Oo.,  37  Conn., 
Allen    (Mass.)    98.  ^73,  9  Am.  Rep.  347. 

35.  Wilson  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  38,  Wilson  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
62  Cal.  164,  7  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  supra;  Browne  v.  Johnson,  29  Tex. 
400,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  161 ;  Boies  43 ;    Harris    v.    Packwood,    3    Taunt. 

264. 


AA    000  743  729    6 


